A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

originally posted by: facedye
I never once stated the people who were supposedly on that plane did not lose their lives.

And subsequently covered up in your overly complicated plot to fly an 'I don't know' into the Pentagon.

I am not the one who is trying too hard.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Yes, because a plane that slams into a building at a high rate of speed, punches through the wall to the interior where it explodes, is going to leave most of its debris where it's easily seen all over the lawn.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Actually buying into the story that proven liars tell is what is actually too funny. Proven liars that are still proving they are liars today even. That is what you would call a real life fallacy/fantasy belief.

So what flew into the Pentagon? How did the American Airlines aircraft wreckage get there? Where did the people go? How did our immensely competent government keep this all covered up for so long but a few awakened non-sheeple somehow figured it all out?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: pale5218

Gee , that's Odd , I thought it was Already Proven that a Cruise Missile Disguised with Airline Markings Hit the Pentagon and left a Perfectly Symmetrical Round Impact Hole in the Building .

They said that the hole was punched out by one of the engjnes - these are made from Titanium and are designed to withstand disintegrating blades as well as high temperatures. There are crash test videos of what happens to aircraft when they hit a concrete wall. Usually the plane loses.

I always chuckle at the folks that point to unbroken windows...

I have been on search and rescue after a tornado... house ripped in half... china cabinet in the corner with the china unbroken, or a desk with nick naks sitting on them undisturbed.

Sometimes there is no logical explanation for things that occur.

I have seen no testable proof it was a missile, we still have a plane and people that are accounted for with debris and meat paste.

So until proof can be offered that it was not a plane I will continue to believe it is a plane.

If you want to dive in the rabbit hole that bush and company, or the cia was fully aware what was coming and let it happen so they could make a move on the poppy fields... I am more than willing to listen... but holographic projections disguising a missile, or just a missile... I dont buy it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Those accidents left very small pieces of debris, as did Flight 77. If Flight 77 had landed in a field, in the same manner, it would have looked similar to the high speed impacts, and all the debris would have been in small pieces.

Just because we don't see all the debris doesn't mean it's not there. In any investigation there's a lot we don't see, but it's still there.

They also seem to have left larger pieces of debris I've never seen anyone pull out of the pentagon crash.

that, coupled with the idea that "just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there" is where you and I hit most of our forks in the road thus far.

I'm sure you would agree that the pentagon attack was highly controversial, news-worthy, and investigated with the spirit of extreme detail. I can't imagine a scenario where something evidently linked back to flight 77, and *only* flight 77, but has made its way through history unreported and undocumented.

I would posit that if our government really had obvious and unquestionable debris of flight 77 that would have without a doubt put this matter to rest, they would have done so already. a long time ago, at that.

it really does beg the question. if they absolutely have undeniable evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon, why not make it as plain as day to see?

seems oddly difficult to get a straight answer on the matter from the very agencies that were turned into victims that day, don't you think?

originally posted by: DickBrisket
a reply to: pale5218

I was at the Pentagon...Did Presidential Security from 1999 to 2004. All the conspiracy theories are B.S. PERIOD. Regardless, all the "Experts" who've been living in their parent's basements polishing their participation trophies will scream otherwise. You know...cause they weren't there and I was. Do not suffer fools.

LOL ................

well if you were

why haven't you
explain your version of the Story
and what you have seen in those particular Moments !

Describe and Detail , and the Debris!

better yet

How about you make a Thread about your experience at the pentagon when it all went down.
let ATS members ask all kinds of questions!


yup seems like you have opened a can of worms admitting you were there !

what did you do, what did you see ,

LOL... I doubt you did ..

Mr Secret Service ..

that even explains more ! LOL..

apparently your Team Failed to do its Job at the Pentagon.

The Dangerously Delayed Reactions of the Secret Service on 9/11
911blogger.com...

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: Failures of the US Secret Service on the Morning of 9/11: A Call for Transparency
www.globalresearch.ca...


The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service’s Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?
www.infowars.com...



Well Hopefully Ill be seeing your explanation and story on a thread in the near future .
unless your trolling ! ( as you may very well be )


well as what Ive heard, it was a Soviet Modified Missile that was like a Bunker Buster
that was secretly taken from the K-141 Kursk when Halliburton Cheneys affiliation with the company
helped salvaged the Sub. with its Missiles on board


www.verim.org...

November 7, 2000 - the end of a diving operation, 12 bodies of crew members were withdrawn from the 9th compartment of the K-141 Kursk submarine, including the body of Lieutenant-Commander Kolesnikov, who left a suicide note. Penetrate into the remaining compartments, and also evacuate 11 more bodies found from the 9th compartment was not possible. Also, Halliburton undertook a detailed inspection of the bow of the lost boat, lifting of heavy loads from the seabed, a segment of lightweight hull fragments in the area of ​​the destroyed first compartment and their ascent, which, using the technical means of the vessels, Mikhail Rudnitsky and Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, was not possible .

translate.google.com...://www.verim.org/ship/katastr/k-141-kursk/start&prev=search

Salvage operation
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

you fail to acknowledge that the OS presents an overly complicated and impossible plot in and of itself.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The aluminum used in aircraft has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steel. And it hit the wall like a battering ram.

I look at the logistics side of this. If it was a missile then an airplane with a good number of passengers are missing. What kind of missile would it have been and fired from where? This would not have been an air to air missile. Where did the 757 parts come from like the gear and turbine pieces? A C-130 followed a plane that disappeared, if not into the Pentagon then where did it go? There are zero eyewitnesses that say they saw a missile in the air...
A whole bunch of witnesses that saw a plane hit, one guy whose truck was near by had aircraft rivets embedded in it. Here is a good list of reports...

Pentagon Eyewitnesses

originally posted by: facedye
you fail to acknowledge that the OS presents an overly complicated and impossible plot in and of itself.

Didn't know crashing an airliner was so difficult.

a reply to: facedye

They also impacted into an open field, which changes the debris and debris pattern. That's why I said "consistent with". No two aircraft crash sites are identical, even when they impact in almost identical ways. United 585 and USAir 427 were both 737s, both rolled onto their back and dove into the ground, both crashed in mountainous areas (United in Colorado Springs, USAir in Pennsylvania), both had different debris fields.

Why would they publish it though? In the grand scheme of things, they don't give two damns if a relatively small aspect of the population doesn't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not. Why should they care what the peons think? They've already proven they don't give a damn what we think when it comes to matters more important to most people.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

crashing an airliner? probably not that difficult.

crashing a boeing 757 at ~530mph about 10-20 feet off of the ground into a supposedly-heavily-guarded pentagon? yeah I'd say that's a bit of a harder challenge.

you seem like the type to call an 18-24 inch snowstorm a "slight dusting" just because your entire residence isn't shut in with snow.

Yes those witnesses
That's what I'm all about, not one has any special pinpointing details.....they're all really suspect.....no details about....idk maybe could ya see a name on the dang thang, did it have windows, or this...some special " I was appalled at the feeling of the huge airliner crushing into a structure I could see it pile in.... "

Or " dang the smoke was so thick after it hit it lasted for an hour " ....no....?...ok

a reply to: pale5218

Thank you for your time and effort with this thread but...

It was a missile

Hey, there....if the official story is saying any speed over 300 then.....the public in mass would be broadcasting ...at that time...reports of a plane, by even the housewifes or those unfamiliar....of a plane hauling azz.......no better way to parrot what they would have reported.....an airliner haulin azz so fast our eyes couldn't even keep up with the sob...the ones we see around the metroplex are coasting in at 175 knots indicated...have to go slow huh?.....no brakes

.a reply to: facedye

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Funny, I've watched passes by aircraft at air shows that were at mach 0.8 or 0.9, far faster than Flight 77 was reported, and my eyes had absolutely no problem whatsoever keeping up with them.

originally posted by: facedye
crashing an airliner? probably not that difficult.

crashing a boeing 757 at ~530mph about 10-20 feet off of the ground into a supposedly-heavily-guarded pentagon? yeah I'd say that's a bit of a harder challenge.

Considering most aircraft crashes happen at 0' off the ground I would think the altitude is not that much of a factor nor do I see the relevance of the Pentagon allegedly being 'heavily armed', whatever that means.

you seem like the type to call an 18-24 inch snowstorm a "slight dusting" just because your entire residence isn't shut in with snow.

If I lived in the Sierras I would, it's al about perspective. Which, when it comes to personal religion, tends to go out the window.

This thread is really plowing deep.

Props to everyone here....how cool

If ya walked up to a 757 you'd think mountain....best describes the curb appeal....but the turbine intakes.....standup in side the blower fan cowling and ya can almost walk under it, but it's too scary

a reply to: facedye

Heavily guarded by what? The Alert Force was the only thing guarding the airspace. And as showed in another thread, it had been gutted at the time.

That's another item.....in that post up there.....
The average perceived tallness of whatever hit the facade......that's a subject all to its own

I'll go scan for the vertical stabilizer mark at 45 feet......or did it fold upon sight of the impending incontinence