Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

VIDEOS - http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

Call me a skeptic, but I freeze framed both videos and they each have 1 frame of anything that remotely looks like an airplane, which certainly isn't large enough to be a full passenger plane. I don't see how these tapes prove ANYTHING at all.

Why all the controversy about these tapes and why weren't they released sooner?

i think it was a cruise missile.
thats all im going to say since i debated it to death and
i fear i already baited deano as it is.

this isnt new. They released the 5 frames which showed "something" hit the pentagon a logn time ago. THey are releasing this entire video very publicly on the news because most americans are niave and they want to use this as propoganda.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9036641176590759507&q=9%2F11+loose+change+second+edition

watch that if you have time its worth it.

if they actually wanted to release tapes that show something, they could release the tapes from the hotel, gas station, and traffic camera that they confiscated.

Originally posted by forumcrew
this isnt new. They released the 5 frames which showed "something" hit the pentagon a logn time ago. THey are releasing this entire video very publicly on the news because most americans are niave and they want to use this as propoganda.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9036641176590759507&q=9%2F11+loose+change+second+edition

watch that if you have time its worth it.

if they actually wanted to release tapes that show something, they could release the tapes from the hotel, gas station, and traffic camera that they confiscated.

I knew about the 5 frames, but these are longer versions...still proves nothing.

I saw the Loose Change doc a month ago. Very informative.

yea i watched the new videos today, as you said they are just longer but no more helpfull

Originally posted by LanceWindu
VIDEOS - http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

Call me a skeptic, but I freeze framed both videos and they each have 1 frame of anything that remotely looks like an airplane, which certainly isn't large enough to be a full passenger plane. I don't see how these tapes prove ANYTHING at all.

Why all the controversy about these tapes and why weren't they released sooner? on the first I can only see the nose of the craft. And yes, it looks like a 757 plane.
on the second one it's a blur, but still could be a 757.

but, it doesn't help us much.

Originally posted by PVS
i think it was a cruise missile.
thats all im going to say since i debated it to death and
i fear i already baited deano as it is.

a missile fired by whom? not bin laden i hope

Originally posted by Deano
a missile fired by whom? not bin laden i hope

No, by the NWO while Icke was riding on it...you know, like that guy in Dr. Strangelove....

you are living in denial. i admit the truth is a bitter pill to swallow

Originally posted by Deano
you are living in denial. i admit the truth is a bitter pill to swallow

You admit it because you didn't swallow it yet?

If the US really wants to prove its not a conspiracy then they should show all tapes from the Hotel to the gas station and prove to the world that this is not a conspiracy. Why so much secrecy? Theres nothing to hide seeing how the WTCs are gone and The Pentagon doesnt really reveal anything other than they were hit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You admit it because you didn't swallow it yet?

actually i heard he likes to swallow

Originally posted by PVS
actually i heard he likes to swallow

Only David Icke's....lets not get into what of David Icke....

Not wanting to sound obvious here, but what do the conspiracy theorists say actually happened to Flight 77?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not wanting to sound obvious here, but what do the conspiracy theorists say actually happened to Flight 77? it disappeared in the atlantic. Just like that.

Originally posted by PVS
actually i heard he likes to swallow

says more about your mind and lifestyle than mine. over the years it seems to be me you are obssesed with homesexuality

Originally posted by Deano
says more about your mind and lifestyle than mine. over the years it seems to be me you are obssesed with homesexuality and you are obsessed with stupid conspiracy spam bullshit. But we all have our differences

conspiracy fact yes. you should be concerned but as you say, we all have our differences.

Originally posted by Deano
conspiracy fact yes. you should be concerned but as you say, we all have our differences. well, you do know a plane hit the pentagon right?

looks like a missle to me

How does an extra 3 minutes (spread before and after) Proove anythign?

Notice how there is Almost no debri? Like, justbits of scrap metal in the first vid, nothing else.

Alos note the responce time. A "plane" just freaking crashed in the damned Pentagon! No cop cars or anything.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
How does an extra 3 minutes (spread before and after) Proove anythign?

Notice how there is Almost no debri? Like, justbits of scrap metal in the first vid, nothing else.

Alos note the responce time. A "plane" just freaking crashed in the damned Pentagon! No cop cars or anything. First of all pause the second video down 24 seconds in to it, you can make out the nose of a plane/ what looks like to me a small passanger plane before the explosion. And if cops had a response time of 3 minutes or less the world would be a much better place.

That's not the nose of a small passenger plane. Thast's the front end of a missle. And beyond that, be it a small passenger plane or a jumbo jwt, there would still be wrefckage. Not to mention that a small passenger plane would penetrate the fifth ring, leaving only small holes in the last few. No, this was a missle.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not wanting to sound obvious here, but what do the conspiracy theorists say actually happened to Flight 77?

That it was actually a missile that took off from the airport and no one noticed until it hit the Pentagon. Sneaky terrorists.

Those cunning bastards!

Wreckage be damned, are you people nuts? Where was the wreckage of the planes that hit the Trade centre? Vapourised, obviously!

Besides which, you CAN see some plane wreckage in other photos of the scene at the time. Not much- enough to be consistent with, say, a small jet plane slamming into a building at high speed.

There is nothing at all suspicious about the wreckage.

And hit the fifth ring???!! Do you know how well armoured that side of the Pentagon was? Not to mention that the plane actually hit the ground just in front of the Pentagon first. It damaged all five rings; what more do you want?

We've all heard the names of the passengers aboard the WTC planes and the Pennsylvania plane but what about the Pentagon plane? Does anyone know anyone who was on it? I remember listening to the radio at work on 9/11 and they quickly denied the pentagon had been hit and then retracted their
statement. I'm not a conspiracy buff by any means but there's something fishy going on here.

And KMP... are you saying that the cops didn't bother to turn up BECAUSE it wasn't a plane?

It makes absolutely no sense. Something blows up the side of the Pentagon, the police aren't going to care what it is; they are not going to show up only if it is a plane.. Whatever the reason, the cops got there when they did.

As it is, they were rather more interested in getting the firefighters there first.

And yes, the death roll from flight 77 has hardly been a secret. It's been publicised just like all the rest.

doctor evil: yes, because we have "laser beams" which will shoot down any missile.

trivialise the theory all you wish. laugh at it. whatever.
all i know is that it looks like a missile, impacted like a missile, and all footage besides those two clips which were always available were confiscated and never released. what have they to hide? or perhaps the government feels we cant handle the trauma of seeing it? yet we can all see the planes impact the wtc from every concievable angle. but for some reason our tender eyes and hearts just cant deal with seeing the pentagon attack.

logical question: why are they still hiding the videos? ignore the rest of my post if you must, but answer me that one question.

It didn't impact like a missile. What on earth makes you say that?

I don't give a damn why they are not releasing them. The concept is too preposterous to entertain without evidence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It didn't impact like a missile. What on earth makes you say that?

I don't give a damn why they are not releasing them. The concept is too preposterous to entertain without evidence.

the evidence of possible conspiracy is in their hiding of the footage. if you cant see that then what more do we have to discuss?

"It's a missile because they're hiding footage."

Makes perfect sense now, I can't believe more people don't blindly accept this. There couldn't possibly be more reasons for hiding the footage other than the object being a missile. Well, I'm convinced.

Ok, let's say it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
Who fired it? From where? And for WHAT reason??

Originally posted by BackFire
"It's a missile because they're hiding footage."

Makes perfect sense now, I can't believe more people don't blindly accept this. There couldn't possibly be more reasons for hiding the footage other than the object being a missile. Well, I'm convinced.

dont mix my own admitted speculation with suspicion that there is a truth being covered up. i mean, its cute and all, the way you put it, and made me chuckle a bit, but a useless response none the less.

That is completely retarded logic. Whatever the reason for not releasing the footage, the fact that the footage is not released does not change anything in the slightest. Everything we have indicates that the plane hit it- from the fact that Flight 77 sure as hell went somewhere, to the fact that there was plane wreckage around, along with burning aviation fuel, and the fact that people saw the damn plane!

What cameras AREN'T showing isn't proof of anything at all.

There is no evidence. As a standard of evidence, saying some footage is not available is a pile of crap that would be kicked out of a court of law in an instant.

Originally posted by PVS
doctor evil: yes, because we have "laser beams" which will shoot down any missile.

trivialise the theory all you wish. laugh at it. whatever.
all i know is that it looks like a missile, impacted like a missile, and all footage besides those two clips which were always available were confiscated and never released. what have they to hide? or perhaps the government feels we cant handle the trauma of seeing it? yet we can all see the planes impact the wtc from every concievable angle. but for some reason our tender eyes and hearts just cant deal with seeing the pentagon attack.

logical question: why are they still hiding the videos? ignore the rest of my post if you must, but answer me that one question.

The question I'd like to answered, is the videos, (which you are right, have always been available) not one of them show a JUMBO JET hitting the building. I believe the official story is that flight 77..a JUMBO JET...hit the pentagon. And you can't tell me that if a Jumbo Jet hit the pentagon....which isn't a 100 story tall skyscrapper that swallowed those two planes...there wouldn't be visible wreckage all over the groud. And if this tiny JUMBO jet bounced off the groud, then there would be damage to the lawn...and there isn't.

It's a 757, not an enormous King Kong plane.

The camera frames are too slow to capture the plane before impact, is all.

And yes, I am telling you there would be very little wreckage. You are simply incredibly wrong to think there would be. It got vapourised, aside from those bits that got flung backwards on initial impact. Those bits are actually visible in photographs at the time.

And... err... there WAS damage at the point where it impacted.

This is the hole in the inner most ring. Not indicative of a JUMBO JET

Originally posted by The Omega
Ok, let's say it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
Who fired it? From where? And for WHAT reason??

ok fine, what made me suspicious of a coverup:
"why are they hiding the footage?"
"why are no passengers killed aboard this supposed airliner identified?"
"why is the whole event just a black whole in the overly extensive media coverage of 9/11"

this is why i say that i believe a truth is being covered up.

-------------- THICK LINE --------------

now for my speculation: a missile attack.
the reason i feel that a missile attack would be covered up is to
prevent panic. even after we were attacked, we still feel invulnerable to
any type of attack not involving hijacking. but to know that we were actually hit by a missile would beg the question "whats preventing them from firing another with a tactical nuclear warhead? panic. thats the only reason i would see for a cover up.

And to add to that, the video doesn't look like this

And so, what, they destroyed Flight 77 themselves to make it seem real?

PVS, it's nosnese. It is totoal bullcrap nonsense that doesn't pass any tesat of logic. If the Pentagon got missiled, they would have gone with that; it is no more embarrassing than being aeroplaned, considering the number of security faults that let that happen.

What is to stopping them crashing an aeroplane with a warhead on? God, it's just so damn silly, this whole thing, that I do not know where to start.

All you have is some footage not being released from an incident that otherwise shows overwhelming evidence of being hit by Flight 77. You are spinning fairy tales out of nothing.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And to add to that, the video doesn't look like this

And why the hell SHOULD it?

Are people really so devoid of logical capacity any more?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is the hole in the inner most ring. Not indicative of a JUMBO JET

Why not? Do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you making it up as you go along?

it doesnt matter capt.

either people tend to stuff their logic in their own rectums and deny their basic isntinct to question "why" or they just go over the deepend and trust any lunatic theory as fact. its sad imho the lack of people who will simply ask "um...why exactly cant we see what happened?"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And... err... there WAS damage at the point where it impacted.

Yeah, at the point it hit the building, but not in the lawn on the way up to the point of impact. When was the last time you saw a plane crash that didn't leave at least a half mile burn mark in the groud when it crashed.

That is a desperate comment from a desperate person who has not one shred of actual evidence to back up his ludicrous assertions.

I note you make no effort to refute the massive evidence against your view, PVS, so your attempts to make us out as the unintellectual ones are pitiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And why the hell SHOULD it?

Are people really so devoid of logical capacity any more?

Why the hell should it? Because that's the whole ****ing point? I don't think you need to concern yourself with me making stuff up as I go along.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, at the point it hit the building, but not in the lawn on the way up to the point of impact. When was the last time you saw a plane crash that didn't leave at least a half mile burn mark in the groud when it crashed.

When it crashed that close to the building, hmm?

More and more desperate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And so, what, they destroyed Flight 77 themselves to make it seem real?

PVS, it's nosnese. It is totoal bullcrap nonsense that doesn't pass any tesat of logic. If the Pentagon got missiled, they would have gone with that; it is no more embarrassing than being aeroplaned, considering the number of security faults that let that happen.

What is to stopping them crashing an aeroplane with a warhead on? God, it's just so damn silly, this whole thing, that I do not know where to start.

All you have is some footage not being released from an incident that otherwise shows overwhelming evidence of being hit by Flight 77. You are spinning fairy tales out of nothing.

i am not spinning fairy tails. i made it clear three times so far that my suspicion of a missile attack is one thing and that my certain belief that something is being covered up is another thing entrely. its pretty obnoxious to intentionally blur the two just so you can say "retarded logic" and "fairy tails" and "bullcrap" etc.

Well, go on, Captain. Enighten us, oh genius. Why could that not have been caused by Flight 77?

What you have done is post a picture and say that could not have been a plane. There is no actual logical connection betrween the two, you are just hoping the comment will stand.

It is so sad, all of this, it really is.

Originally posted by PVS
i am not spinning fairy tails. i made it clear three times so far that my suspicion of a missile attack is one thing and that my certain belief that something is being covered up is another thing entrely. its pretty obnoxious to intentionally blur the two just so you can say "retarded logic" and "fairy tails" and "bullcrap" etc.

Evasion, as ever. You are not attempting to refute the evidence against you, Therefore what you say is shit. You have not the slightest grounds to suspect a missile attack. There is no evidence. I may as well say it was an explosive garden gnome attack.

What sort of crusie missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When it crashed that close to the building, hmm?

More and more desperate.

So, you compare the pic I posted of a 757 that close to the building, and the pics from the video...and you're telling me I'm desperate? How should they not look at list a little bit alike? A tiny silver object slamming into the side of the pentagon should not look like a 757? Desperate is clearly a point of view.

well, i really dont care to debate this thread anyway. i already did it, it got nowhere, and just amounted to people either saying "ZOMG NOTHING IS BEING HIDDEN!!! THATS STUPID!!!! THATS RIDICULOUS!!!! THATS *insert negative adjective* !!!!!1111" or the thread would be hijacked by deano with tales of explosive demo charges in the wtc. its just a cluster**** and not worth getting into.

Because... as already mentioned... the camera frames are too far apart to actually see the damn plane. It was going VERY fast, you know.

Quite why you thought the image had to look anything remotely like what you mocked up there is beyond me.

Originally posted by PVS
ok fine, what made me suspicious of a coverup:
"why are they hiding the footage?"
"why are no passengers killed aboard this supposed airliner identified?"
"why is the whole event just a black whole in the overly extensive media coverage of 9/11"

this is why i say that i believe a truth is being covered up.

-------------- THICK LINE --------------

now for my speculation: a missile attack.
the reason i feel that a missile attack would be covered up is to
prevent panic. even after we were attacked, we still feel invulnerable to
any type of attack not involving hijacking. but to know that we were actually hit by a missile would beg the question "whats preventing them from firing another with a tactical nuclear warhead? panic. thats the only reason i would see for a cover up.

Ok. But that still does not answer the questions:
Who fired the missile? From where? And for What reason?

Originally posted by PVS
well, i really dont care to debate this thread anyway. i already did it, it got nowhere, and just amounted to people either saying "ZOMG NOTHING IS BEING HIDDEN!!! THATS STUPID!!!! THATS RIDICULOUS!!!! THATS *insert negative adjective* !!!!!1111" or the thread would be hijacked by deano with tales of explosive demo charges in the wtc. its just a cluster**** and not worth getting into.

You mean you haven't got any evidence or logical reason to think what you do, and confronted by the evidence against you, you are backing out.

Fine.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
PVS, so your attempts to make us out as the unintellectual ones are pitiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
capt, oh genious

That's kind of hypocritical of you. I haven't insulted you, have I?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Evasion, as ever. You are not attempting to refute the evidence against you, Thgerefore what you say is shit. You have not the slightest grounds to suspect a missile attack. There is no evidence. I may as well say it was an explosive garden gnome attack.

What sort of crusie missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

how you avoid the point so eloquently and then accuse me of evasion.
i stated my suspicion and then i stated a theory. (4th time)


you're totally being obtuse and i wont entertain this for another second.

My attempts aren't pitiful, is the difference. Your arguments are silly, and I am refuting them as such., PVS was talking from grounds with no foundation.

Come on- are you going to xplain to us the logic behind what you say or not?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You mean you haven't got any evidence or logical reason to think what you do, and confronted by the evidence against you, you are backing out.

Fine.

I hate to point this out, but you are the one that has provided no evidence for your point of view. All you've done is take the evidence provided by others and simply stated your opinions about it.

Originally posted by PVS
how you avoid the point so eloquently and then accuse me of evasion.
i stated my suspicion and then i stated a theory. (4th time)


you're totally being obtuse and i wont entertain this for another second.

Asking you to provide evidence and refute mine is obtuse?

No, that's direct. Your so-called theory has nothing to back it and therefore is actually nothing more than wild speculation. Not deserving of the term 'theory'.

You don't want to entertain the argument because you cannot fight it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I hate to point this out, but you are the one that has provided no evidence for your point of view. All you've done is take the evidence provided by others and simply stated your opinions about it.

his opinion is always fact. no evidence is ever needed. havent you learned this by now?

opinion/fact: they are hiding nothing and the videos were not released simply because they dont feel its a big deal.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I hate to point this out, but you are the one that has provided no evidence for your point of view. All you've done is take the evidence provided by others and simply stated your opinions about it.

First of all, if that is so, so what? Evidence is evidence, and it is there. Hence, you are just evading again, because you cannot defend your point.

Second- what, your evidence is all yours, is it? Took pics and vids yourself? We all get our evidence from other sources.

I can post a pic of a piece of plane wreckage on the lawn if you want. But this is a massive distraction from the actual argument.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Note the photo that shows debris from the plane.

Also, Ush asked a perfectly valid question which more or less debunks the whole missile thing. What kind of missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

See, now PVS is just desceding to making pointless posts that simply attack me, rather than advance his point at all. Evidence of how completely without structure, form or foundation his ideas are.

Doesn't the fact that no-one fronting this idea actually has any evidence or any means to refute contrary evidence say something?

The bottom line is that none of you know what happened at the pentagon unless you were standing outside the front of it to actually see it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Asking you to provide evidence and refute mine is obtuse?

No, that's direct. Your so-called theory has nothing to back it and therefore is actually nothing more than wild speculation. Not deserving of the term 'theory'.

You don't want to entertain the argument because you cannot fight it.

i'm not "fighting" it (what a revealing term) because as i said, its my suspicion. not once did i tout it as fact or say i had ANY evidence besides suspicion and absence of evidence otherwise. of coarse, you will ignore that for the....5th time is it?...and go on to parrot the same response. should i just ring a bell and declare you the winner, since you called me out for not producing the evidence that i never said i had?
fine:

*ding* *ding* *raises ush's hand*

and for your victory speach, perhaps you can produce your evidence that nothing of the pentagon attacks is being hidden from the public eye. surely you're just bitter since you never got to deliver the big knockout punch. sorry i couldnt go the distance.
so lets have it champ...

Well, you called it a theory, which I refuted. You refuse to counter any evidence against it, which means even your suspicion makes absolutely no sense. And nor did I ever claim anything other than simply not caring about why the footage is not released, because frankly it doesn't affect a damn thing at all. We have overwhelming evidence saying it is a plane. Some unreleased footage still means jack shit.

Get me some evidence or your suspicions are pure folly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, if that is so, so what?

Because that is the very basis of this discussion.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Second- what, your evidence is all yours, is it? Took pics and vids yourself? We all get our evidence from other sources.

While I'm sure that all evidence you post to support your arguments in various threads on this forum are first hand evidence, I will yeild the point that I did not shoot the video, or digitally place the 757 in front of teh pentagon. But you know damn well, that the government has not addressed this video...and in not addressing it, they couldn't have denied the authentic value of it in this discussion. Also, I'm unaware of any other occasion where a missle or prop plane hit the pentagon and it was not reported to the American people. Perhaps you coupld provide the truth behind this video...what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? As for the pic of the 757 in front of the building; while I'll conceed that the person who created it may have a bias in this case, I can't see where the video is at ALL indicative of a 757 hitting the side of that building. I'm not here to debate you on the merrits of conspiracy. I'm here to state that that video DOES NOT represent teh story given to the American people as the explaination of the events of 9/11

then: produce your overwhelming evidence. or i guess you just dont have to.

You know there are many other pictures (check the link I gave you) aside from that video footage that plainly show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon and not a missile or a garden gnome or a fat person.

Err, the overwhelming evidence is all over the place. I already listed it. Burning aviation fuel. Plane debris on the lawn. Eyewitness accounts. The fact that Flight 77 has to go somewhere, and every indication we have is that it hit the Pentagon.

Ok, I don't have a time machine to go and check it myself, but nor do I have one to go see Pearl Harbour; it is still pretty damn obvious what happened there.

Captain, I have no idea what you are talking about. The relevance of this line:

"what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? "

Totally escapes me. More total irrelevance?

If you are going to tell me the video doesn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon, then I agree, It doesn't show a damn thing. But nothing I have said has anything to do with that. Fact remains, there is plenty of evidence that it WAS a plane, none that it was a missile. That's the bottom line.

Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Note the photo that shows debris from the plane.

Also, Ush asked a perfectly valid question which more or less debunks the whole missile thing. What kind of missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?

I see no evidence of burning aviation fuel. And when a plane the size of a 757 hits a building the size of the pentagon, there will be damage consistant with such an impact. There would be damage from teh wings hitting the building. We saw that kind of damage with the WTC impacts. And such evidence does not appear in a single video or picture from teh pentagon.

No, it does show damage caused by the wings in another picture.

Here.

You see no evidnece of burning aviation fuel, huh?

So, all the firefighters trying to deal with it, interviewed and filmed at the time it happened, are all liars? What thge hell do you think was burning so vigorously there for so long?

As BF says, there IS damage consistent with the wings. You have nothing to go on, Captain.

Originally posted by BackFire
You know there are many other pictures (check the link I gave you) aside from that video footage that plainly show evidence that it was a plane that hit the pentagon and not a missile or a garden gnome or a fat person.

i see no definative evidence. i just see theories, counter theories, and some conspiracy evidence debunked...and a tiny chunk of what may or may not be airplane debris.

and again, im not saying that i feel its fact that it wasnt a plane.

snopes fails to point out the lack of passenger identities,
the quesion of confiscated videos, or the fact that when the planes hit the wtc, there was clear evidence of wing penetration and they punctured solid steel.

look, the point as someone else pointed out is that neither of us knows anything with 100% cetainty (except for ush of coarse) i just find much suspicion in their hiding of evidence. i guess that its "retarded logic" but oh well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Captain, I have no idea what you are talking about. The relevance of this line:

"what other occasion did a prop plane or missle have to hit the pentagon? "

Totally escapes me. More total irrelevance?

You want to act like the video isn't authentic footage of teh 9/11 impact. But I haven't heard of any other occasion where the pentagon was blown up, is my point.

And the whole point of this argument is that the video doesn't show a boeing 757 hitting the side of that building. How can you argue that? I'm saying that the video is close enough to the point of impact...along with all teh objects in teh foreground to go along with that...and you still maintain that a 757 hit the side of that building. It simply did not.

And if you want to talk about eye witness accounts, don't leave out the dozens and dozens that said they heard a missle or saw a military fighter jet flying low over the ground just before the explosion.

It really annoys me to see these suicide bombers blowing up people as well as themselves. In my day, suicide was done in a more dignified way, such as slicing your wrists in the bath, or hanging yourself from a door with a belt.

Originally posted by BackFire
Here.

Where? I see a round hole. Not at all like the ones in the side of the WTC.

Originally posted by amity75
It really annoys me to see these suicide bombers blowing up people as well as themselves. In my day, suicide was done in a more dignified way, such as slicing your wrists in the bath, or hanging yourself from a door with a belt.

roman empire?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You have nothing to go on, Captain.

And you seem to have even less.

PVS- what lack of passenger identies? It takes me seconds to find a Flight 77 passenger list.

And no, Captain, this argument is about debunking the silly idea that it was a cruise missile. Sorry if you missed that, but that is indeed what is actually being talked about here.

And you make no sense. How does that video show a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon? What total and utter nonsense is that? It clearly shows SOMETHING hit it, and all the evidence points towards it an aeroplane.

'Dozens and dozens', was it? I wager you will find that it wasn't more than said it was Flight 77.

If this thread reaches 200 pages and people still claim is a missile I'm just gonna puke on my computer out of complete disgust. Eventually this will become the new "Big Foot" footage of our times.

Person A:"It's a guy wearing a gorilla costume"
Person B: "NO IT'S ACTUALLY BIG FOOT!!!"

WD: "Oh, *BEEP*!"

Passenger names are readily available - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

They don't question the confiscated videos because there is nothing to question. They confiscated the videos, there could be a million reasons why. Again, not evidence that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon.

I posted a picture that shows wing damage to the pentagon.

In short, there is evidence that it was a plane that crashed into the pentagon, there is no evidence that it was a missile.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And you seem to have even less.

Good Lord, how did you come up with such a witty and substantial reply so quickly?

It is only less if you are too brain dead to pay attention to the very substantial points that have been made against you in this thread.

Are you now trying to compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon one? How desperate are you getting? 100 miles an hour faster with no ground impact first into a totally different type of structure.

That picture shows the damn impact holes where the wings went in. What's wrong with you? Again, the firefighters were dealing with this stuff, it is all there. They noticed.

Did any of them say that the wings had mysteriously vanished? No. Tell you what though- they'll talk a lot about the aviation fuel burning so hot that they couldn't get near for hours.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If this thread reaches 200 pages and people still claim is a missile I'm just gonna puke on my computer out of complete disgust.

promise?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Where? I see a round hole. Not at all like the ones in the side of the WTC.

There's no reason to believe that the damage to the pentagon would be exactly identical to the damage of the WTC. They were different types of buildings, made of different material and such.

The picture clearly shows a large section that is damage beyond the "round hole", this damage was caused by the wings.

Originally posted by BackFire
Passenger names are readily available - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

ok, i stand corrected on the passenger list.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, not evidence that it wasn't a plane that crashed into the pentagon. again, i never said it was. i only said it was reason to question "why?"

Originally posted by BackFire
I posted a picture that shows wing damage to the pentagon.

i see fuel burns. however i see no wing damage. maybe my eye prescription is in need of updating but all i see is a burnt wall and a round hole.

Yes, you need a new prescription. There are whacking great gaps on that picture.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And you make no sense. How does that video show a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon? What total and utter nonsense is that? It clearly shows SOMETHING hit it, and all the evidence points towards it an aeroplane.

'Dozens and dozens', was it? I wager you will find that it wasn't more than said it was Flitht 77.

Yes, an airplane that is about the size of a missle. THAT is the utter nonsense. You know damn well that that video, which you have yet to dispute it's validity, is NOT a boeing 757. It simply isn't big enough. And you just want to argue. You know very well a plane that size would be much too easy to recognize on that video. And it isn't.

I'm not going to dispute the list of names for the flight that hit the pentagon. I'm not going to dispute how or who fired the missle. Because I don't know enough about those aspects of teh "conspiracy theory". However, I know that no wreckage was recovered from that impact that would correspond to a 757. I know the damage to the building is not consistant with a plane the size of a 757 and I know the several videos, that have yet to be disputed by the government, is not a 757.

Originally posted by BackFire
There's no reason to believe that the damage to the pentagon would be exactly identical to the damage of the WTC. They were different types of buildings, made of different material and such.

The picture clearly shows a large section that is damage beyond the "round hole", this damage was caused by the wings.

I don't see it.

Here is a challenge...

What kind of Missile was it? Since some of you are so technical to know the size of a hole a missile would make....one would think you guys would know (or even guess) the size of the weapon that could have cause the whole explosion.

People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, how did you come up with such a witty and substantial reply so quickly?

It is only less if you are too brain dead to pay attention to the very substantial points that have been made against you in this thread.

Are you now trying to compare the WTC impact to the Pentagon one? How desperate are you getting? 100 miles an hour faster with no ground impact first into a totally different type of structure.

That picture shows the damn impact holes where the wings went in. What's wrong with you? Again, the firefighters were dealing with this stuff, it is all there. They noticed.

Did any of them say that the wings had mysteriously vanished? No. Tell you what though- they'll talk a lot about the aviation fuel burning so hot that they couldn't get near for hours.

Again, you are resorting to calling me braindead because I don't agree with you. This is the second time you have resorted to name calling or insulting. I thought you were supposed to lead by example.

Originally posted by The Omega
Ok. But that still does not answer the questions:
Who fired the missile? From where? And for What reason? There are any number of locations... ANYWHERE really. 12 million people can sneak across Mexico's border... why can't they get a SCUD launcher in? I don't know ranges or anything such as that, but isn't Canada a viable location option? *Shrug*

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Here is a challenge...

What kind of Missile was it? Since some of you are so technical to know the size of a hole a missile would make....one would think you guys would know (or even guess) the size of the weapon that could have cause the whole explosion.

People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?

here's a bigger challenge: where did i say i had evidence that it was a missle or even declaired it to be anything beyond speculation?

ok, ill start my homework and you start yours.

*DONE*

Again, Captain, what is wrong with you? Who said the plane is the size of a missile? You can barely see the front of the object in that video.

I know a plane travelliong that fast sure as hell has a good chance of not being seen on a video with that kind of frame delay.

I know all you can do is ignore evidence abvout aviation fuel, and the aeroplane wreackage that was there.

You don't know the damage is not consistent with a 757 at all. You are IMAGINING it is not. You are either simply stupid or just folling yourself. You have not the slightest beginning of grounds to back that, and when something is pointed out to the contrary, you simply ignore it.

It is all in your head, Anyone with a tiny shred of rationality sees evidence that it was an aeroplane, none that it was a missile.

It is simply absurd, all of it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, you need a new prescription. There are whacking great gaps on that picture. Conduct befitting of a Global Moderator, all through-out the thread!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If this thread reaches 200 pages and people still claim is a missile I'm just gonna puke on my computer out of complete disgust. Eventually this will become the new "Big Foot" footage of our times.

Person A:"It's a guy wearing a gorilla costume"
Person B: "NO IT'S ACTUALLY BIG FOOT!!!"

WD: "Oh, *BEEP*!" If I use google to find related information, or wikipedia, will I be chastised and strung up?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
People who believe is a plane say it was a 757. Now your turn...what kind of missile could cause this?

Yeah, I know a lot about cruise missles. But I know a jumbo jet travelling as fast as one, loaded with aviation fuel, would do a hell of a lot more damage to that building than occured on that day.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Again, you are resorting to calling me braindead because I don't agree with you. This is the second time you have resorted to name calling or insulting. I thought you were supposed to lead by example.

No no, I am saying you would have to be braindead to look at all the substantial stuff I have posted and call it less than what you have said. Now, if you want to fit the shoe, that;s your business, but I stand by what I say there absolutely.

If I don't like what you say, it's not because you don't agree with me, but because of your apparently dimwitted refusal to accept facts in favour of your sensationalist piece of fiction.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No no, I am saying you would have to be braindead to look at all the substantial stuff I have posted and call it less than what you have said. Now, if you want to fit the shoe, that;s your business, but I stand by what I say there absolutely.

If I don't like what you say, it's not because you don't agree with me, but because of your apparently dimwitted refusal to accept facts in favour of your sensationalist piece of fiction.

so someone would have to be braindead to not agree with you.
so if capt doesnt agree with you its his own fault.
pointless left handed insults ROCK

Anyone?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are either simply stupid or just folling yourself. You have not the slightest beginning of grounds to back that, and when something is pointed out to the contrary, you simply ignore it.

And this is the third time your stunning moderator qualities have shown themselves. Again, you resort to insulting because I disagree. That is not needed.

And you seem to think that because I "imagine" the damage consistant with a missle vs. a plane, that you AREN'T "imagining" the damage of a plane vs a missle. You don't know any more about it than I do.

Ushgarak you have no more evidence to say it was a plane than the conspiracy theorists have to say it was a missile. This debate will still be getting discussed in 50 years time.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Anyone?

meh...who cares. i doubt dick cheney is reading any of this.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, I know a lot about cruise missles. But I know a jumbo jet travelling as fast as one, loaded with aviation fuel, would do a hell of a lot more damage to that building than occured on that day.

Do you? HOW do you know this?

It penetrated three rings of one of tbe most armoured buildings oin the country. It damaged all five rings. It blew apart the parts it hit with such force that the entire saide of the building eventually collapsed.

So, Mr. Plane Collision expert, tell us why you know that a 757 (stop calling it a jumbo) would have done more than that?

Originally posted by amity75
Ushgarak you have no more evidence to say it was a plane than the conspiracy theorists have to say it was a missile. This debate will still be getting discussed in 50 years time.

Lying won't help you. Read the thread again, and you will see the evidence.

I don't lie.

Originally posted by amity75
Ushgarak you have no more evidence to say it was a plane than the conspiracy theorists have to say it was a missile. This debate will still be getting discussed in 50 years time. \

unless of coarse the footage is released and the everyone can just...know. but for some reason which i would be retarded in questioning, that is not going to happen. oh well

Originally posted by PVS
here's a bigger challenge: where did i say i had evidence that it was a missle or even declaired it to be anything beyond speculation?

ok, ill start my homework and you start yours.

*DONE*

PVS all you have done in this thread is LIE! Here is what you said earlier:

Originally posted by PVS
i think it was a cruise missile.
thats all im going to say since i debated it to death and
i fear i already baited deano as it is.

After 6 pages you're still here....and you answer a question with another question. I love people who just do that.....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And this is the third time your stunning moderator qualities have shown themselves. Again, you resort to insulting because I disagree. That is not needed.

And you seem to think that because I "imagine" the damage consistant with a missle vs. a plane, that you AREN'T "imagining" the damage of a plane vs a missle. You don't know any more about it than I do.

I can understand coherent analysis by experts when I see it. And I find their explanations a thosand times more accurate than yours.

Trying to make out I am a mod does not make you any less foolish for bliding yourself to facts, you know. You post foolish arguments, I will happily point them out all day long.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lying won't help you. Read the thread again, and you will see the evidence.

There was a girl that once posted something similar to this in the OTF. I believe it was in regards to how she wanted her boyfriend to get cricumsized.

Her posts went somewhat like this:

"If you look back in the thread, you see I am right. "

Originally posted by PVS
so someone would have to be braindead to not agree with you.
so if capt doesnt agree with you its his own fault.
pointless left handed insults ROCK

To not agree with the evidence. I'm just the messenger.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
your apparently dimwitted

number 4. You seem to be all shades of bothered by me today Ush. And if the shoe fits, it's only because you say so? I don't think that's how it works.

Originally posted by amity75
I don't lie.

When you say there has been no evidence that it was a plane, you are either incapable of understanding the thread, or lying. Choose.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
PVS all you have done in this thread is LIE! Here is what you said earlier:

ZOMG LIES LIES LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111



Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
After 6 pages you're still here....and you answer a question with another question. I love people who just do that.....

i cant help it...i was baited. the same as you, who claims that this is all so ridiculous and not even worth pondering...yet you seem so....aroused

The government is evil

This isn't going to end well.

Anyway, I found some information on cruise missiles. Tomahawk missiles carry a 500kg payload of explosives, enough to destroy bunkers or sink ships (Their intended use, I guess).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When you say there has been no evidence that it was a plane, you are either incapable of understanding the thread, or lying. Choose. Em no, read my post, I didn't say there was NO evidence, I said that there was no more evidence to distinguish it from a plane crash than from a missile attack.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I can understand coherent analysis by experts when I see it. And I find their explanations a thosand times more accurate than yours.

Trying to make out I am a mod does not make you any less foolish for bliding yourself to facts, you know. You post foolish arguments, I will happily point them out all day long.

When the experts are the ones telling the story, I would imagine you should.

I'm not a sensationalist or any sort of conspiracy monger. But I know what I see and believe. And you choose to say that all the exprerts support your perspective, while none support mine. And that's fine. You are certainly welcome to go on believeing that video shows an object the size of a 757, and I will go on believeing it does not.

All the insults you toss at me won't change that.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When the experts are the ones telling the story, I would imagine you should.

I'm not a sensationalist or any sort of conspiracy monger. But I know what I see and believe. And you choose to say that all the exprerts support your perspective, while none support mine. And that's fine. You are certainly welcome to go on believeing that video shows an object the size of a 757, and I will go on believeing it does not.

All the insults you toss at me won't change that.


It's been admitted that the video being talked about doesn't show a 757 hitting the Pentagon, this hasn't been denied. But what's foolish is denying/ignoring all the other outside evidence that clearly does show evidence that it was a plane, from the passenger list, to the aircraft debree in another picture, to the aviation fuel burns on the building, to the wing damage, too eyewitness reports.

The only evidence for it being a missile is "this particular video doesn't explicitly show that it's a plane." Got new for you guys, it also doesn't show that it's a missile. So we'd better come up with a third option since this video is obviously the only piece of evidence that matters.

You know, now that I watch the video again and stop it at the point where it shows the front nose of whatever it is going towards the pentagon...it looks a lot like a giant dildo.

There you have it folks, the terrorists flew a dildo into the pentagon.

Originally posted by BackFire

There you have it folks, the terrorists flew a dildo into the pentagon.

how did i just KNOW that you would eventually work sex toys into the topic?

Originally posted by BackFire
It's been admitted that the video being talked about doesn't show a 757 hitting the Pentagon, this hasn't been denied.

It has been denied repeatedly by Ush. If he is going to argue that the video doesn't show a 757, then what is he saying it is? What are you saying it is? And if something else hit the pentagon on 9/11...before th eplane hit, then why was this not part of the official story of that days events? Everyone keeps saying it was something, not a 757, but not a missle either, then what was it that hit the building, clearly, before flight 77? And if we're going to say it wasn't a 757, and it wasn't footage of flight 77, then on what occasion was the pentagon bombed, hit by a dildo or a fat person, that wasn't reported to the people of this country?

Originally posted by PVS
how did i just KNOW that you would eventually work sex toys into the topic?

Originally posted by PVS
ZOMG LIES LIES LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111





i cant help it...i was baited. the same as you, who claims that this is all so ridiculous and not even worth pondering...yet you seem so....aroused

Nice...what you taking as bait I see it as a pointless waste of any further time. I appreciate what NineCoronas did by doing some research. I leave you with this:

Popular Mechanics

I'm sure you've seen the magazine in stores shelves. Maybe if you bother to pick one up you'll be amaze. Have a good Day.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It has been denied repeatedly by Ush. If he is going to argue that the video doesn't show a 757, then what is he saying it is? What are you saying it is? And if something else hit the pentagon on 9/11...before th eplane hit, then why was this not part of the official story of that days events? Everyone keeps saying it was something, not a 757, but not a missle either, then what was it that hit the building, clearly, before flight 77? And if we're going to say it wasn't a 757, and it wasn't footage of flight 77, then on what occasion was the pentagon bombed, hit by a dildo or a fat person, that wasn't reported to the people of this country?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you are going to tell me the video doesn't prove a plane hit the Pentagon, then I agree, It doesn't show a damn thing. But nothing I have said has anything to do with that. Fact remains, there is plenty of evidence that it WAS a plane, none that it was a missile. That's the bottom line.

Who said something else hit the pentagon? I don't even get the point of the rest of this post.

The point Ush and I are making is that, while this particular video doesn't show evidence of the plane hitting the pentagon, there is OTHER sources that do show evidence. The video shows nothing clearly. Why? Because the framerate is shit, it's terrible quality.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Nice...what you taking as bait I see it as a pointless waste of any further time. I appreciate what NineCoronas did by doing some research. I leave you with this:

Popular Mechanics

I'm sure you've seen the magazine in stores shelves. Maybe if you bother to pick one up you'll be amaze. Have a good Day.

how cute a collection of pointless and childish jabs...but still cute. ok you have a good day too.

Originally posted by Deano
you are living in denial. i admit the truth is a bitter pill to swallow

yeah the truth is too frightening for him to swallow so he lives in denial on things like this about our government.as jack nicholson said in A FEW GOOD MEN-YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH .that is so true about so many americans.

Originally posted by amity75
We've all heard the names of the passengers aboard the WTC planes and the Pennsylvania plane but what about the Pentagon plane? Does anyone know anyone who was on it? I remember listening to the radio at work on 9/11 and they quickly denied the pentagon had been hit and then retracted their
statement. I'm not a conspiracy buff by any means but there's something fishy going on here.

be careful now,besides government people,posters around here will call you a conspiracy nut if you dont blindly accept the governments lies and their official version.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
be careful now,besides government people,posters around here will call you a conspiracy nut if you dont accept the governments lies and thier official version.

True.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
be careful now,besides government people,posters around here will call you a conspiracy nut if you dont accept the governments lies and their official version.

Not accepting lies is fine, but most of the conspiracy theorists here don't accept the truth either. That's the problem. If the government's official version of events didn't come from them, but came from the net and some dodgy source, it would be fair game. Oddly.

I still don't get why conspiracy theorists believe the government is nothing more than a glorified knitting circle. They're not a group of gossiping crones. If they don't want the general public to know something, you won't know it. They are so lapse in secrecy that Joe Nobody can log onto the net and foil their plans.

I don't accept the government's lies as truth, but only a fool would believe everything they say is a lie, just because they do lie.

Conspiracy theorists don't accept lies, or truth. They accept the info given to them from certain sources and deny it from others, regardless of what it says.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Nice...what you taking as bait I see it as a pointless waste of any further time. I appreciate what NineCoronas did by doing some research. I leave you with this:

Popular Mechanics

I'm sure you've seen the magazine in stores shelves. Maybe if you bother to pick one up you'll be amaze. Have a good Day. Useful link. Thanks for the credit.

The debate over what hit the Pentagon has thrived due to the contradiction between eyewitness reports and physical evidence. While a number of eyewitness reports indicate that a twin-engine jetliner exploded at or in front of the Pentagon, photographs of the damaged lawn show a near absence of aircraft debris, and photographs of the damaged facade do not show a pattern of damage consistent with the paths of the outer wings and vertical tail section.

...why, yes! I am just copying and pasting from another source.

Originally posted by debbiejo
flower_girl

If Bardock can make love to a fish, can I get a blow-job from a flower?

I don't know, do have flowers outside your house???......go try and report back...

Have flowers, but no pretty eyes to destroy.

Originally posted by BackFire
Who said something else hit the pentagon? I don't even get the point of the rest of this post.

The point is that this is clearly a video of "something" hitting the pentagon. Is that point free of contention? Okay. The second point is, if this is a video of "something" hitting the pentagon, then what is it? And if "something" hit the pentagon that was not a 757, then on what other occasion did "something" hit the pentagon and blow up one of the walls?

So, if everyone agrees that this is video of "something" hitting the pentagon, what is it...and since it clearly isn't a boeing 757, why was this "something" not reported as part of teh events of that day? Even considering the skipping of the frames, looking at the first frame where the object is visible, it is clearly not the nose of a 757.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c8/Airindia.nose.arp.750pix.jpg/250px-Airindia.nose.arp.750pix.jpg

Originally posted by BackFire
It's been admitted that the video being talked about doesn't show a 757 hitting the Pentagon, this hasn't been denied.

Originally posted by BackFire
Who said something else hit the pentagon?

So, if it isn't a 757, what is it? If it isn't flight 77, what is it?

It IS a 757, it just isn't seen directly in the shitty video because of the slow frames per second. This is why this video is proof/evidence of absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by BackFire
It IS a 757, it just isn't seen directly in the shitty video because of the slow frames per second. This is why this video is proof/evidence of absolutely nothing.

distance and frame dispute what you say. Provide evidence of a 757 hitting the building, otherwise. Can you? No. That tiny object was no more a 757 that was my balls hitting the building. Provide the evidence. You can't. Because it doesn't exisit.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
distance and frame dispute what you say. Provide evidence of a 757 hitting the building, otherwise. Can you? No. That tiny object was no more a 757 that was my balls hitting the building. Provide the evidence. You can't. Because it doesn't exisit.

I've provided evidence throughout this thread, as has Ush. From the airplane debree, to the list of the passengers, to the picture which shows damage caused by the wings (which you refuse to accept for whatever reason) to eyewittness reports.

All of which is factually more evidence then there is for it being a mysterious missile launched by a mysterious party from a mysterious place that no one has ever seen and no one can rightfully explain.

Originally posted by BackFire
All of which is factually more evidence then there is for it being a mysterious missile launched by a mysterious party from a mysterious place that no one has ever seen and no one can rightfully explain.

where is the official story, involved?

Where is the physical, AND video proof of a 757 hitting the building? Where is the governments response?

What official story?

Originally posted by BackFire
What official story?

That flight 77 hit the building and caused the damage reported on that day?

I'm not trying to dispute that something hit the building....but we all agree that it was not a 757....or a "JUMBO" jet. So, what was it?

No, we don't all agree on that, that's the problem. The only thing we all agree on is that this particular video doesn't clearly show the plane hitting it.