What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

I am confused... there have been many references to no engine found at the pentagon?

there was infact many pieces of the engines found.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

try that link.

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by jthomas
First, I've already stated that no one can identify a Boeing 757 or any jet just by looking the the security camera video. Second, no one is even claiming that. Third, we have multiple lines of evidence already demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is precisely why no one even needs a video to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So you agree theres no VISUAL EVIDENCE of any BOEING OR PLANE even though the GOVERNMENT and all those pushing the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY STORY claim that footage is PROOF??????

Show us where the "government" claimed the security cam video is "proof". Why would ANYONE need to make that claim when ALL of the other evidence already conclusively demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon?

You might want to catch up on your research. You're 8 years behind.

Good luck!

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


prizim posted this, but didn't do it in resonse to any particular thread.

But, since Ex_MislTech kept repeating the myth about "no engines found" at the Pentagon, I think it deserves another mention:

www.aerospaceweb.org...


ALSO, if as everyone who buys the lunchmeat known as the "No Airplane At The Pentagon" conspiracy keeps saying that there was no airplane at the Pentagon...can they PLEASE explain the SSFDR data? The numerous photos of airplane debris that is associated with the B757? The eyewitness testimony? (Even the ones who cling to the "flyover" fantasy now, prior to changing their stories they were certain they saw the airplane impact. Regardless, there are over a hundred others who saw it.)

It goes on, and on. BOGUS information, mindlessly repeated. Usually by people who are just seeing it for the first time, and become "convinced" based solely on the fact that there is FAR, FAR more garbage out there, especially because of the Internet, than truth.

Gargage In, Garbage Out.

The noisemakers win, because they scream the loudest. Doesn't make them right.

There are fewer sane individuals trying to bring reason to the discussion.

The rash of conflicting and erroneous material, and self-important blowhards who trumpet it is doing more HARM than good!!!

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to jthomas' post #84

 

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
I don't think I'll ever forget that comment. I think it speaks volumes for why many OS supporters are so averse to questioning their beliefs.

I'd recommend questioning your own belief that there is some "official story" to "believe" rather than vetting, accepting, or refuting the massive evidence that is available.

Once you come to realize that the use of the prop, "official story", is no more than a means to hide the Truth Movement's inability to deal with the actual evidence, that it is used, as Jezus did here today, as a means of saying to us that links to evidence is "nothing more than links to the 'official story', so "we don't have to deal with it," you'll understand why the "official story" claim is such a canard.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me. I do believe there is an official story and as a general rule, I think you agree with it. I also believe that the Truth Movement as a general rule has examined more evidence than OS supporters. As to what Jezus said, I'd like to see the context, but I can tell you that I consider myself to be more thorough concerning checking alleged evidence from OS supporters than many within the truth movement, so feel free to present any evidence you feel that others in the truth movement haven't addressed.

Too bad you don't understand. The evidence is what matters. It stands on its own and needs no "official story."

Truthers have to refute the evidence but never have been able to. They deny evidence exists; instead, it's all just a "story." They make claims that do not stand scrutiny. And when they are confronted with actual evidence that is inconvenient to them, they, like Jezus did above, simply dismiss it as the "official story," . i.e., "it's just a 'story', nothing there, move on, folks!"

Maybe you'll come to understand the nature of Denial one day and change your mind. In the meantime, Truthers presumably are supposed to be convincing the real world of something with actual evidence, but after 8 years it remains a mystery what they are actually trying to do.

reply to post by jthomas


Still haven't seen you reply to my post regarding video evidence jthomas. This is the second time I have pointed that out now - I am starting to think you really don't have an answer for me. Having a little trouble trying to figure out a ridiculous statement to deflect conversation away from the topic perhaps? Or is it that you simply cannot think of a reasonable argument to counter my logic?

Interesting.

reply to Lillydale's post #123

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x

 

I hear you, I just thought I would save you from this little treat as we have watched him flounder with the same two empty arguments for months. He is far to repetitive and predictable and never offers anything of substance to the discussion. I would want to see for myself too though.

I've been skimming over all the posts as I've been creating a thread tree for this thread, so I have an idea of what you mean. Essentially, his stance seems to be that the burden of providing solid evidence lies on us, not on the OS supporters. That's alright though- ultimately, if we didn't have people like jthomas, we'd all be nodding our heads in agreement that 9/11 was an inside job and the discussion would only be on how exactly those insiders went about orchestrating what happened that day. I've done that on truther sites at times, but their main drawback is they aren't so tolerant of even bringing up arguments from those who disagree with x or y point of theirs. As you may know, there has been a rift within the truth movement for some time regarding whether or not the plane that approached the pentagon actually hit it. I've been persuaded for quite some time by PFT/CIT's argument that the plane flew over the pentagon, but I brought up arguments from people who don't see it that way in their forums and, well, suffice it to say that I've been removed from both :-p. But the truth doesn't change just because those who see it can at times be overly prickly and/or overly mistrusting ;-).

reply to jthomas' post #144

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me. I do believe there is an official story and as a general rule, I think you agree with it. I also believe that the Truth Movement as a general rule has examined more evidence than OS supporters. As to what Jezus said, I'd like to see the context, but I can tell you that I consider myself to be more thorough concerning checking alleged evidence from OS supporters than many within the truth movement, so feel free to present any evidence you feel that others in the truth movement haven't addressed.

Too bad you don't understand. The evidence is what matters. It stands on its own and needs no "official story."

The alleged evidence you believe in is essentially the official story. This is what I've been trying to get you to see. I wholeheartedly agree that the evidence is what matters. What you don't seem to understand is that the official story's alleged evidence is full of unsubstantiated and at times even contradictory claims.

Originally posted by jthomas
Truthers have to refute the evidence but never have been able to.

I'd agree, but I'd have to add "unsubstantiated and contradictory" to precede your "evidence". Meanwhile, OS supporters can generally sit back and relax while we toil away. Yes, I know how it goes...

Originally posted by jthomas
They deny evidence exists; instead, it's all just a "story."

I would contend that we look at the alleged evidence and find it to be severely flawed, and much more in keeping with a bed time story then actual evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
They make claims that do not stand scrutiny.

Can you cite an example?

Originally posted by jthomas
And when they are confronted with actual evidence that is inconvenient to them, they, like Jezus did above, simply dismiss it as the "official story," . i.e., "it's just a 'story', nothing there, move on, folks!"

Can you cite the post of Jezus that you're referring to? You mentioned it in your last response to me as well, but I still don't know what post you're referring to.

Originally posted by jthomas
Maybe you'll come to understand the nature of Denial one day and change your mind.

I suppose I've said as much concerning your stance. Perhaps we should try to focus more on the alleged evidence (whether from the OS side or the truther side) so we don't keep on going with these types of arguments that don't generally lead anywhere...

Originally posted by jthomas
In the meantime, Truthers presumably are supposed to be convincing the real world of something with actual evidence, but after 8 years it remains a mystery what they are actually trying to do.

A mystery to you, perhaps. If so, I ask that you give us some more time.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Orion7911


WOW... I couldn't have said it better exMis!! This explanation of who JTHOMAS really is, should be repeated by those in the KNOW about this issue here.

Let me meditate on what you said one more time

An entire STAFF was hired to debunk these arguments online.

Indeed its more than obvious JThomas is connected to and nothing more than an extension of the PERPETRATORS sent in to various forums to perpetuate confusion and derail intelligent discourse on those seeking truth and asking the most basic common sense questions due to the obvious tampering and damage control cover up that continues to grow as more and more are waking up to the TRUTH 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB.

No REAL PLANE hit the Pentagon if any at all.

Anyone with a brain of an ant doing a full investigation and real research can see the EVIDENCE shows this and outweighs the evidence the OCS claims proves AA77 hit the pentagon.

EOS

Would you mind if I have this reprinted in my Regional NWO Newsletter next month?

Originally posted by 2kni3
Something major is gonna happen between October 11 to the 25 .

Too late. The 9/11 Truth Movement already died.

reply to jthomas' post #148

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Orion7911


WOW... I couldn't have said it better exMis!! This explanation of who JTHOMAS really is, should be repeated by those in the KNOW about this issue here.

Let me meditate on what you said one more time

An entire STAFF was hired to debunk these arguments online.

Indeed its more than obvious JThomas is connected to and nothing more than an extension of the PERPETRATORS sent in to various forums to perpetuate confusion and derail intelligent discourse on those seeking truth and asking the most basic common sense questions due to the obvious tampering and damage control cover up that continues to grow as more and more are waking up to the TRUTH 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB.

No REAL PLANE hit the Pentagon if any at all.

Anyone with a brain of an ant doing a full investigation and real research can see the EVIDENCE shows this and outweighs the evidence the OCS claims proves AA77 hit the pentagon.

EOS

Would you mind if I have this reprinted in my Regional NWO Newsletter next month?

Let me guess; you're sarcastically asking if you could reprint it in your fictional New World Order Newsletter, that it :-p? I have heard that some -bloggers- are being paid by the government, but I haven't heard that any forum posters have been. Nevertheless, I wouldn't put it past those who were behind 9/11.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by veritech01
Here is something I don't get. If this is all a huge government conspiracy then why did they use a missile instead of a plane?

because it's physically near impossible to fly a 747 into the pentagon. That's why.

They used planes for the WTC and a plane supposedly crashed in Shanksville.

whatever hit the trade centers were not commercial airliners and i guarantee you that no plane crashed in Shanksville at all.

If they wanted to pull this off without anybody knowing why didn't they just crash a plane into it like the official account?

because it's physically near impossible. Ask ANY professional pilot. But the exact way they said it crashed into the building, is actually absolutely impossible.

Would it have been that much harder?

a lot harder, since it's impossible.

Did they just get lazy and say "Ahh, # it, just missile the mother#er"?

it's a lot easier to brainwash millions of stupid people, than it is to defy the laws of physics.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish

Ask ANY professional pilot.

You rang????

Go ahead --- ask.

An Airplane
second line

reply to post by weedwhacker


credentials before bull[expletive] please

i should have mentioned it in the above post, but i guess i thought it was self explanatory., My mistake . . . but have you ever flown anything the size of a 747? Because hell, i know lots of people who fly little dingy planes, but i wouldn't consider them professional pilots.

edit: to be clear i'm I'm saying that it is NEAR impossible to fly a plane into the pentagon. BUT it is ABSOLUTELY impossible for a plane to be flown into the pentagon in the manner in which the conspiracy theorists claim. Yes that's right, the people who believe the original story are the conspiracy theorists at this point since the MAJORITY of the world does not believe the original story.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to jthomas' post #148

 

Originally posted by jthomas


Would you mind if I have this reprinted in my Regional NWO Newsletter next month?

Let me guess; you're sarcastically asking if you could reprint it in your fictional New World Order Newsletter, that it :-p? I have heard that some -bloggers- are being paid by the government, but I haven't heard that any forum posters have been. Nevertheless, I wouldn't put it past those who were behind 9/11.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by scott3x]

Gosh, that's spooky. Imagine Al Queda paying people to argue against 9/11 Twoofers who are on a 21st Century Crusade to Insult Muslims by claiming they "all live in caves" and couldn't possibly know how to pull off 9/11.

Yeah, pay posters to show the U.S. Government is innocent and incompetent. That makes sense.

And I think I know who is behind it.

reply to post by jthomas


So what happened on 9-11 Jthom? serious question, i want to know what you think happened.

reply to post by JPhish


Well, let's see....

I never bid to train on the 747, for the short time we had them at my airline. But, don't know why you mention the 747, since it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon....

Anyway, I started with the airline in 1984...June 18th. Back then, entry-level was as Second Officer on the B727. After about six months, I moved over to Second Officer on the DC-10, then I was tapped to be an instructor to the new people for their Initial Operating Experience in that seat (I.O.E.). Did that for about seven months, then as my seniority increased, finally could 'hold' a bid on the B727 right seat (First Officer, it's called). So, we're in 1985. I was an F/O on the B727 (I remember vividly January 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. I was in Denver, in between flights and walked through the Flight ASttendants lounge on the way to the Weather Room to get the flight plans and weather for the next flight).

Let's see...we got the Airbus A-300, I flew that in the right seat for a while, then the DC-10. Best job, that (except the pay was better as Captain, but still not senior enough yet).

In late 1992 I began training to upgrade to Captain on the B737, finished in January 1993. Flew that for a while....changed bases, moved, switched to Captain, MD-80 for better relative seniority in the different base. Also flew the DC-9...people change seats all the time, angling for better working conditions and pay, within the senority rules.

THEN...about 1998 finally was senior enough to hold the B757. (We got those first, the B767 didn't come into the fleet until 2000).

When I got hired in 1984 I had about 6,700 hours. NOW I have just over 20,000. That's the majority in 'big' jets...as long as you allow that anything like a B727 and similar, up to the B767-400 qualifies.

On September 11, 2001 I had a five-day trip scheduled strting the 12th. A B767-400 trip down to Sao Paulo and Rio, back to Sao Paulo and back to the NYC area. Obviously, because of the attacks and groundings, didn't fly the entire trip. Was told to dead-head down on what would have been the next-to-the-last day, to Sao Paulo, where we were in position to overnight and then fly the last lag of the trip pairing as originally scheduled.

Post-9/11, of course airline business began to wane again....our DC-10s and MD-80s were quickly retired, people shifted again, and my best move was back to the B737. We were getting a lot of new 737 deliveries, and though the pay is slightly better on larger equipment (757/767) being on "reserve' (on call) is not worth it, compared to having a biddable schedule...even though I preferred the 757/767 over the 737.

That's my short bio....

Any more questions??

reply to post by weedwhacker


what would be your "percent chance" of flying a 757 (and yes that was a typo before so give me a break) into the pentagon.

Doesn't matter how you crash the plane into the building, as long as you hit it. In 100 tries, how many times do you think you'd hit your mark?

[edit on 9/21/2009 by JPhish]

jthomas

If there is no official story, are you suggesting that there is *No Official Truth* regarding 9/11 because there is no narrative?

reply to post by JPhish


Well....from experience in the simulator on the rare occasion when there was a lax bit of time in the schedule to fool around, it is really not that hard to pick a point, aim at and hit it. I've "hit" buildings in "flight"...flwon under "bridges"...all the normal things you do when the simulator is a novel fun toy...but, you soon grow tired of that. I mean, the novelty wears off quickly.

Hitting a particular point...say, on the ground for instance...well, that's really what a landing is, after all. Just at slower speeds, of course!!

I learned to fly in the civilian world...do not have perfect 20/20 uncorrect vision, so military fighters were not going to be an option. Correctable to 20/20 is perfectly acceptable, though, for the airlines (and even for military, ONCE you get in!)

Anyway, from working with and getting to know ex-mil colleagues from the various branches, the absolutely most demanding thing in aviation is probably a carrier landing...especially at night.

But, even in day....you have two moving targets, the airplane and the ship. It's purely visual, no electronic guidance to help, there is a light system (the 'meatball') to aid in the approach glideslope to the correct touchdown point to grab the arresting cable (well, there are three, just in case...).

BUT....the big ole' Pentagon, sitting there and not moving? Not hard at all. Unfortunately.