Well i cant find anything but if it wasnt a plane then what was it? And whats the reason to attack the pentagon? More fundings for the CIA, NSA and so on..?? So many questions so little answers..

There should be some debrise left on the lawn but what is the possibility that it went up in flames?

wow ive never seen stuff like that before. a pretty good site showing how everything is a lie about the stuff to do with sept 11th

Kind of makes you wonder what "they" have in store for us next.

Here it goes again.

THE PENTAGON HAS DOZENS OF STEEL PILLARS INSIDE,SO WHEN THE PLANE CRASHED IT'S STRUCTURE DISINTEGRATED AND MELTED FROM THE FUEL THAT LEAKED OUT.

[Edited on 27-10-2003 by Creepy]

Umm.......

Weve played hunt the boeing MANY times, this link and that site is OLD.

It has to be the lamest theory for 9/11 yet. Anyone who understands anything about airplanes, impact, velocity, resistance, ect, can see VERY easily where the plane is.

Have you looked at the 2 links Ive posted?

This of course, is assuming that the plane crashed in the orientation of the superimposed images...

However, this isn't the case, and the Boeing is substantiated by witnesses, as basically crashing nose first at an extremely steep angle... If you look at such crashes (where the aircraft hits the ground at almost a 90 degree angle), the plane basically disintegrates, and only damages a smaller area around it...

The only coverup to 9/11, is the incompetence that lead to it happening in the first place... Remember, there were plenty of other planes that the same thing was going to happen to (the plan involved ten planes at least, according to arrests, and past attempts at the same).

The plane disintegrated without breaking too many windows?

Theres another article some place about remote units in the tail sections of boeings, and how the Luftwaffe removed th eones in Lufthansas aircraft Ill have to find it, but its 3.30 am here.

Have you looked at the 2 links Ive posted?

Have you done an ATS search on this site for this exact same topic which has been posted, since Ive been here, 8 times that I am aware of and have counted, far many more total?

Those links have been posted and debated on this site, well.....since those two links were made.

There is half your answer there, earthtone. Eyewitnesses.

When eyewitnesses numbering in the thousands say they see something, I will believe them, especially when I know a few.

It also helps to remeber Washington DC is chock full of military types, airforce, who, by nature of thier very professions, can tell the difference between a missile and an aircraft.

My airforce buddy who worked for the Pentagon said when he heard the roar, his first thought was a cargo jet, and he turned around, he was like about 2 blocks away, i think, just in time for the #ing thing to wizz over his head, and when he turned around, he watched the ass end disappear into a ball of flames.

Incidentally, many witnesses on the ground reported the overpowering smell of jetfuel, jsuyt like they did at the WTC. Rockets and missiles dont run on jet fuel, the run on a solid booster fuel. Every missile in our inventory runs on a similar substance.

And........

As I have sen live missile launches, a missile would have been traveling entirely too fast to appear as anything but a streak of light.

A guided missile moving that slow would not have been able to punch through the pentagon like it did. HOW many rings were breached? The penatgon was made to witstand alot of damage from pinpointed missiles and other ordinance.

A plane is a lot bigger than a missle, carrying alot more weight. however, a plane is also lightweight aluminum. Light enouygh when it hits that conrete, it disinitgrates, period, because the friction and heat reated by such an impact is higher than the plane can withstand. However, the heavier parts, such as the engines, made of heavier materials, much more heat resistant, would have had the velocity to continue on through, punching more holes.

A missle, also, with an explosive warhead, would have created such a blast, it would have toasted a much large section of the interior as well, not just punch a couple of stupid holes into the inner offices, it would have incinerated them comepletely.

I am a big time believe in a conspracy surrounding 9/11, yet this missle theory is stupid and laughable even by my overly paranoid distrustful standards.

Enough went on the day of 9/11 that no missles, missing planes, ect, were needed. The very actions and lack of actions on the part of our govornment is more than damning enough.

I wont fight anyone on this one, we have the same common goals, its not the how or the why.

If the fighting back that counts!

u proved ur point
its just....this topix been discussed a little too much ever since the event.
it is a little far-fetched that a guided missile made it's way through the defences striking on of the most important structures in washington.
it had to be a plane....but not necessarily a boeing

subtract the missile and add UAV or remote F-16. This would explain the small turbine wheel found on site, and the fact that they only found one engine...

Missile/Plane... something exploded, just not big enough to cause alot of damage...



[Edited on 27-10-2003 by dexxy]

Hmm...err..okay..I am finding out just how niave I am about the whole situation here..(will pull head in ..here..)
I think I'll go and sit in the corner until i find something ELSE to look a tad uneducated with..
thanks for the input tho..