Originally posted by 25thID as for the C-4 theory, there is evidence that missle silos as well as other governemnt buildings were built with c-4 to add in destruction where necessary.. physics physics physics

Maybe you should try studying chemistry also. Explosives are, by their very nature, extremely unstable compounds. Even C4, one of the most stable, has its limits as to how long and how well it ages.

as for the C-4 theory, there is evidence that missle silos as well as other governemnt buildings were built with c-4 to add in destruction where necessary..

Strange that I've never seen any c-4 or other explosives in any of the government buildings I've done extensive construction in.

To all of you who looked at the evidence, used your brains, and came to the logical conclusion that it was indeed a boeing 757 that struck the pentagon: There are people who's minds you will never change. There are people who WANT to believe that this was a conspiracy orchestrated by our government. You will never change their minds, because they are not willing to open them.

"Despite the fact we confiscated all the Pentagon videos, and have no intention of ever showing them to you, we're all pleased as punch that you don't care. You know, we have a proven track record of telling you only the truth. God bless you all for your unquestioned loyalty!" - Gen. Stryker, Pentagon Dir. of Propaganda

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by 25thID as for the C-4 theory, there is evidence that missle silos as well as other governemnt buildings were built with c-4 to add in destruction where necessary.. physics physics physics

Maybe you should try studying chemistry also. Explosives are, by their very nature, extremely unstable compounds. Even C4, one of the most stable, has its limits as to how long and how well it ages.

doesn't have to be c4. i'm no chemistry expert by any stretch. however, there are many types of explosive, and even c4 explosives could have been clandestinely planted at ANY time. buildings of these size are like small cities. the foot traffic and maintenance can not be monitored THAT closely. when the security firm for the towers has Jeb Bush on the team, it makes it even more likely that the bush/bin laden cabal worked together to bring about the illusion of muslim terror attacks. especially when all the bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled from the buildings just before the attacks. especially when all the power was shut down, in an unprecedented manner, the weekend before black tuesday. expecially when the fireproofing on the support columns required regular maintenance. nobody would think twice if some maintenance crews were accessing the support columns. do YOU watch the phone guy or the cable guy or the furnace repair guy and analyse and study his task, or do you show them where the job is, and then walk away? i'm tired of non-arguments being used to disuade the possibility of subterfuge, sabotage, and, worst of all, a coup of the american government. everybody saw the CD cover from the band, 'COUP', released in august 2001, didn't they? what are the chances? the twenty dollar bill folded like an airplane? all the eleven numerology? 911= emergency? here's one of my faves, "we didn't think of that scenario, and that's why the attack was so successful. oh yeah, and that very morning we were running drills to prepare for an attack on the twin towers using hijacked airplanes. BUT THAT WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! you see, in OUR massive fake terror assault that was going on while the real assault was taking place, OUR fake terrorists had KNIVES, not BOXCUTTERS!" jeesh, conspiracy theorists will believe anything, and ignore all the 'good' evidence. g.w.bush in his post 911 pres address, "let us not TOLERATE any CONSPIRACY THEORY". george needs to look up the word, 'freedom'. oh wait, he knows what it means, because he said, "there ought to be limits to freedom". wow. at least he doesn't want to be a dictator, except he said, "this would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship. just as long as i'm the dictator". the chances of all the improbabilites of the official story being 'just coincidences' is about a gazillion to one.

Turth Out, NOW! Best way for the Truth to come out, is for the FBI and the Department of Defense to do the following: 1. Release the missing frames of the pentagon's CCTV video 2. Release the cctv video of the "mysterious hotel" (the Sheraton National) 3. Release the NEXCOMM/CITGO-gas station video 4. Release other videos or photos like the Virginia department of transports or from the sites over which flight 77 flew on 9/11 5. Kindly ask the BBC, public media of the United Kingdom, USA ally, to release the images shown during Ehud Barak's interview on September 11 6. Allow independent experts to examine the debris of the crash on the pentagon, with witnesses having gathered these debris to identicate them 7. Make some holes in the newly brought materials on the pentagon helicopter field, down to the original soil, and verify that there is no uranium on it. When that happens I will say: "Fine, I BELIVE You Now!" Until then....

Originally posted by billybob oh yeah, and that very morning we were running drills to prepare for an attack on the twin towers using hijacked airplanes.

I'd really like to see the original source of that allegation.

Originally posted by Souljah 1. Release the missing frames of the pentagon's CCTV video

And if there are no missing frames (see my post above)?

7. Make some holes in the newly brought materials on the pentagon helicopter field, down to the original soil, and verify that there is no uranium on it.

Which would be impossible, as virtually all types of soil contain traces of uranium.

I always believed that a plane actually hit. But I doubt that this much information can be complied as proof that the US governemnt WAS NOT involved....

Originally posted by Souljah Turth Out, NOW! Best way for the Truth to come out, is for the FBI and the Department of Defense to do the following: 1. Release the missing frames of the pentagon's CCTV video 2. Release the cctv video of the "mysterious hotel" (the Sheraton National) 3. Release the NEXCOMM/CITGO-gas station video 4. Release other videos or photos like the Virginia department of transports or from the sites over which flight 77 flew on 9/11 5. Kindly ask the BBC, public media of the United Kingdom, USA ally, to release the images shown during Ehud Barak's interview on September 11 6. Allow independent experts to examine the debris of the crash on the pentagon, with witnesses having gathered these debris to identicate them 7. Make some holes in the newly brought materials on the pentagon helicopter field, down to the original soil, and verify that there is no uranium on it. When that happens I will say: "Fine, I BELIVE You Now!" Until then....

This will never happen unless its willed that the Bush regime should be proved culpable That would never happen unless Bush was assassinated We don't need much more 'proof' on this issye We know the truth is completely buried in absented videos No plane hit the Pentagon, if any had strayed near it would have been taken out by a defensive missile No plane hit the Pentagon This is absolutely and finally demonstrated - why the residual arguments? There is no jetliner there - maybe a drone This is final and conclusive proof Proof is only what the majority believe anyway The majority viewing the evidence aand not viewing the withheld evidence could only conclude that no 757 hit the Pentagon

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by dh No plane hit the Pentagon, if any had strayed near it would have been taken out by a defensive missile

How does that work, exactly? Is it automatic? Is there a guy up on the roof 24/7 with a stinger on his shoulder? What about planes that were going in for a landing at Reagan National Airport? Do you know how close those planes flew to the pentagon on their landing approach, or takeoff?

Just an assumption but planes that are cleared to land at that airport shouldn't have a problem landing but planes which have been rufusing contact for about 40 odd minutes and are no where near their designated path would probably be treated differently on defensive radar don't you think? Otherwise, why couldn't any plane just fly into the Pentagon again and again? Why doesn't it happen all the time? Surely America's defensive nerve centre can define a plane that has gone through all the proceedures to land on that run way from a plane that has gone off it's route and turned off it's contact and identification? If it's only being registered on defensive radar and it's known that there's hijackings in place, you think they'd put two and two together and not just assume that plane was going for the runway. If not, the Pentagon should think about getting some kind of defensive system established or close that run way I'm glad you don't run the Pentagon Howard, considering under your logic they don't even have cameras monitoring the side the Pentagon was hit and have no radar that can define a rouge plane from a plane landing on near by run ways - or maybe you were running the Pentagon on 9/11

Hey Howard, are these Pictures supplied by FBI/DOD, which you use Everytime people start to talk about Pentagon crash?

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis Otherwise, why couldn't any plane just fly into the Pentagon again and again? Why doesn't it happen all the time?

Maybe the reason why planes don't crash into the Pentagon again and again has something to do with planes not being hijacked for the purpose of being used as missiles everyday..... Who knows? (just for kicks, look up the rules and procedures for shooting down civilian passenger planes, and also follow the timeline of the events that day. also, you and your friends souljah and 25thID need to go back and read through this thread again because alot of your questions and concerns have been answered already - more than once. do this just for kicks)

Originally posted by billybob just for kicks, use some common sense. two planes had already crashed into the towers. the aircraft that hit the pentagon was a known threat. it's pathetic they couldn't shoot it down. the military headquarters of the most powerful nation on earth? the most technologically advanced? a HUGE intelligence sector?

So what part of the "go back and read" was hard to understand? What part of 'most questions and concerns have been answered already - more than once' is hard to understand? I want to know so I can rephrase it. Doesn't beating a dead horse get tiring? What else could you possible want to know concerning this that hasn't been addressed already? Also, do you call missiles appearing magically out of nowhere and hijacked planes magically disappearing common sense?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird So what part of the "go back and read" was hard to understand? What part of 'most questions and concerns have been answered already - more than once' is hard to understand? I want to know so I can rephrase it. Doesn't beating a dead horse get tiring? What else could you possible want to know concerning this that hasn't been addressed already? Also, do you call missiles appearing magically out of nowhere and hijacked planes magically disappearing common sense?

i did refer to a witness who saw a second jet 'hovering', earlier in the thread. did you read that? there was a whole lot of chaos there, and i don't think a plane 'disappearing', would be that magic. i think a plane DID hit the pentagon. i just don't think it was the act of mad muslims ALONE. they needed help and sympathizers from within the US. they had/have them. i just provided a great link to these people. did you read that? here's the name again, "GROVER NORQUIST", TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER AND ENABLIST. i could beat a dead horse back to life, thatsjustwierd. [edit on 20-6-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob i did refer to a witness who saw a second jet 'hovering', earlier in the thread. did you read that?

And I seem to recall Valhall posting a quite reasonable explanation for that plane.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob i did refer to a witness who saw a second jet 'hovering', earlier in the thread. did you read that?

And I seem to recall Valhall posting a quite reasonable explanation for that plane.

interesting , howard. i seem to remember valhall graciously offering to get a new spin on old information by emailing the witness, who is a mainstream reporter. i indicated that his testimony now has less weight, because of possible death threats, or similiar, which could feasibly colour any statements he might now make. don't you remember, howard? you used my quote where i voiced this opinion. remember? read my quote. it's there to refresh your memory. did valhall email him? i don't think so?