Pentagon Video

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
You really hate the Moon Landing conspirists, huh ZEB? :wink:

I notice that with every debate concerning the skepticism of the ‘norm’, you dismiss the lot as a bunch of retarded Moon Landing conspirists!

Well, seeing as this works you up so much, I will tell you that I am not a Moon Landing consipracy believer, and I hope you knowing there is one less potential thorn in your skin out there helps you sleep better at night!

My gift to you. :-)[/quote]

NO That’s not a “gift.”

A gift would be you trying to explain to me right here on this thread, why the moon landing conspiracy theorists are correct!

Don’t you get it yet?

The more wacky theories I read the more entertaining this whole thing becomes


Now
go find a really nutty theory that you can promote and get back to me.

Something as nutty as the government blew up the twin towers


NOW THAT’S NUTTY!

:slight_smile: LOL

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Do you believe the government is evil? Not just corrupt, bad, selfish, money hungry
but pure satanic evil. Please answer.

If you do, then the conspiracies, to you, are plausable. I’m willing to bet nobody thinks this.

If you do not believe the government is pure evil, then it is impossible to believe the 9/11 attacks were anything other than a terrorist attack.

How do you rationalize the idea of a government conspiracy that killed over 3,000 Americans if you do not believe it is run by evil men?
[/quote]

A government would do it, I think, but ours has not. People in power are not to be trusted, and nothing would really surprise me.

[/quote]
That not good enough? How could a government, you consider at best to be completely incompetent, coordinate an attack on it’s own people, in broad daylight, in the nation’s capitol? Do you think the government is that organized and coordinated? There were hundreds of eye-witnesses. Where is flight 77 if it was a missile?
[/quote]

This is the main point here.

In order to believe in conspiracy theories, you have to believe in two things:

  1. That the government is competent

  2. That the government can keep a secret.

Both of these are things that I don’t believe the government is (or can do).

To me, even as a leftist, this conversation is ridiculous.

“Its was them Jews, Commis, and Illumninati”
hey, that kind of rhymes


[quote]ZEB wrote:
I love you conspiracy theory guys. Please keep posting. When I have a hard day I just click over to your latest nutty thread and break out in laughter.

(Banging hands on table and belly laughing)

Again
many thanks.

Please continue
[/quote]

Do you think this is God’s military machine we’re talking about, Zeb? For a self-proclaimed Christian, you don’t seem very astute – I think the “master of deception” pulled a fast one on you.

So everyone should except without question this 757 – identical to Flt 77


is laying right here?
http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/image_archive/pentagon/sgt_jason/in-tact_D.jpg

http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/image_archive/pentagon/sgt_jason/in-tact_C.jpg

Speaking of nutty – how bout’ that Pat Robertson?

Pat Robertson’s Age-Defying Shake
Did you know that Pat Robertson can leg-press 2000 pounds! How does he do it?

YOU of course won’t need to see it to believe it


[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:



If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.



This is the oldest and stupidest argument and is only made by people that do not accept reality.[/quote]

Yeah, the empirical foundation of science is pretty old and stupid. Who needs that “scientific method” bulljive?

What “reality” is there to accept when every event is subject to seperate interpretation by each person who witnesses it? There is no real “collective conscious”
it is simply a mass delusion.

Some notions which you consider preposterous are taken for granted by billions of people around the world. It’s extremely arrogant and narrow-minded to suggest that the interpretation of any event is not entirely subjective.

You can go off all you want about the available evidence backing up your side of the argument, but if you make a statement to the effect of “reality” supporting you or being “on the side of truth”, then you are effectively tossing the laws of physics out the window and proclaiming yourself to be an omniscient diety.

All I’m doing, in the context of this debate, is pointing out that every argument is speculative.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
If you weren’t there then there’s no proof, right? That’s at least 5th time n the last 3 days some liberal freak has said something to the effect that if I (you, the lib in question) don’t personally know every fact, have total unfiltered accest to every piece of evidence, then it’s fake or a cover-up. A big scandal.[/quote]

First of all, you jumped ahead of yourself there and misrepresented what I said. Remember this: absence of proof is NOT proof of absence. The fact that I have no proof of something (be it Sweden’s existence, the Holocaust, or whatnot) means just that: I have no proof. “No proof” means nothing supporting or contradicting the claim. It does NOT constitute evidence that the claim is false. This is a major, philosophical distinction that forms the basis of empiricism.

It’s worth noting that an absence of empirical evidence does not necessarily imply that one cannot form an opinion on some issue. It simply means that whatever opinion is held, will be speculation, rather than knowledge. You can’t – but you CAN’T – “know” something that you didn’t witness. That’s the way the universe works. 99.9% of what everyone thinks they “know” lacks empirical credibility and is thus nothing more than speculation. If enough people realized this, there would be practically no more conflict on earth.

Unfortunately, most of humanity is possessed by an abhorrent god complex which ensures they will act in self-destructive ways until they die.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:



If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.



This is the oldest and stupidest argument and is only made by people that do not accept reality.

Yeah, the empirical foundation of science is pretty old and stupid. Who needs that “scientific method” bulljive?

What “reality” is there to accept when every event is subject to seperate interpretation by each person who witnesses it? There is no real “collective conscious”
it is simply a mass delusion.

Some notions which you consider preposterous are taken for granted by billions of people around the world. It’s extremely arrogant and narrow-minded to suggest that the interpretation of any event is not entirely subjective.

You can go off all you want about the available evidence backing up your side of the argument, but if you make a statement to the effect of “reality” supporting you or being “on the side of truth”, then you are effectively tossing the laws of physics out the window and proclaiming yourself to be an omniscient diety.

All I’m doing, in the context of this debate, is pointing out that every argument is speculative.

PGJ wrote:
If you weren’t there then there’s no proof, right? That’s at least 5th time n the last 3 days some liberal freak has said something to the effect that if I (you, the lib in question) don’t personally know every fact, have total unfiltered accest to every piece of evidence, then it’s fake or a cover-up. A big scandal.

First of all, you jumped ahead of yourself there and misrepresented what I said. Remember this: absence of proof is NOT proof of absence. The fact that I have no proof of something (be it Sweden’s existence, the Holocaust, or whatnot) means just that: I have no proof. “No proof” means nothing supporting or contradicting the claim. It does NOT constitute evidence that the claim is false. This is a major, philosophical distinction that forms the basis of empiricism.

It’s worth noting that an absence of empirical evidence does not necessarily imply that one cannot form an opinion on some issue. It simply means that whatever opinion is held, will be speculation, rather than knowledge. You can’t – but you CAN’T – “know” something that you didn’t witness. That’s the way the universe works. 99.9% of what everyone thinks they “know” lacks empirical credibility and is thus nothing more than speculation. If enough people realized this, there would be practically no more conflict on earth.

Unfortunately, most of humanity is possessed by an abhorrent god complex which ensures they will act in self-destructive ways until they die.[/quote]

What kind of pseudo-intellectual crap is that? So, since I’ve never been to Sweden, I can’t possible know for sure it exists. Is that correct? What if I get on a plane to Sweden to check this out and the plane mistakenly lands in Finland? I think I’m in Sweden, but I’m really in Findland. I go home absolutely positive that Sweden exists because I’ve been there
but I’m wrong. I only think I have witnessed Sweden. My perception now is that Sweden does exist, but Finland might not because I think I’ve never been there. Ooooooh
and our whole universe might be just a single molecule in the fingernail of some super being.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:



If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.



This is the oldest and stupidest argument and is only made by people that do not accept reality.

Yeah, the empirical foundation of science is pretty old and stupid. Who needs that “scientific method” bulljive?

What “reality” is there to accept when every event is subject to seperate interpretation by each person who witnesses it? There is no real “collective conscious”
it is simply a mass delusion.


[/quote]

Scientific method? You are rambling with low grade pop philosophy.

Kind of funny that you consider it profound.

Question: Why did the WTC buildings fall down officially?
Question: Why did 12 tons of titanium evaporate at the pentagon? I am referring to the big as jet engines on a boeing 757.
Question: Why werent any marks made by the wings of the Plane that crashed into the pentagon?

[quote]Prince Vegeta wrote:
Question: Why did the WTC buildings fall down officially?
Question: Why did 12 tons of titanium evaporate at the pentagon? I am referring to the big as jet engines on a boeing 757.
Question: Why werent any marks made by the wings of the Plane that crashed into the pentagon?[/quote]

I don’t know. Wait
Oh
my
God! It’s all a big fat lie! Run for the hills, the government wants to kill us all! Prince Vegeta cracked the code! Wake up everyone, we’ve been duped. We’re all really alseep in some giant government facility. None of this is real. The President is an evil mastermind who will stop at nothing to kill us. Oooooh, the humanity!

Gees, get off the high school mentality kick.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You all know by now that I hate the government. But no United States government would do such a thing to its people, and make us go through the horror that we’ve all endured. It’s not in the character of the country, be it rich men or poor, senators or president. Its not in them to do this to all of us.
[/quote]

Unfortunately Bush is still the same guy he always was – and we were warned.

Amnesty compares Bush to Pinochet
May 24, 2006
Amnesty International says President George Bush’s tactics in his fight against terrorists have made the United States comparable to Augusto Pinochet’s Chile and Hafez Assad’s Syria in its acceptance of torture and disregard of legal restraints.
[
]

In its annual report of human rights conditions around the world, Amnesty included the US alongside China, Russia, Columbia, Uzbekistan and others as states that claim anti-terrorism to justify gross violations.

Amnesty officials, speaking in a news conferences about release of the report in London and Washington, had particularly harsh words for the Bush administration.

“It’s difficult to believe that the United States government, which was once considered an exemplar of human rights, has sacrificed its most fundamental principles by abusing prisoners as a matter of policy, by disappearing detainees into a network of prisons and by abducting and sending people for interrogation to countries that practice torture,” Cox said.

“Governments around the world are using doublespeak and double standards to take advantage of this vacuum of moral leadership,” he said.

Looking back to the year 2000 to get a little look at Bush’s character before he was appointed President and BEFORE 9/11.

Bush’s Death Factory
Boston Globe
October 25, 2000
GEORGE W. BUSH’S dogged denial of factory defects in the death machinery of Texas invites memories of Lyndon Johnson telling us how we were defoliating the North Vietnamese into target range. In the beginning, one could charitably concede that the two men were merely bullheaded souls, filled with false pride and false missions, trying to persuade us we needed to slaughter some criminals or a whole nation into submission.

Johnson’s stubbornness became massacres and suicide battles abroad and dead students at home. Bush’s pathological denials have exploded into a time line that makes it easy to depict him, in the political sense, as a serial killer, indiscriminately dispensing with the despised and chuckling over their bodies.

Bush, remember, has gloated about the death penalty in more than just the presidential debates. He is the same Bush who last year ridiculed death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, whining in mock exaggeration in an interview that Tucker begged, ‘‘Please don’t kill me.’’ Bush, who has made his Christianity part of his resume, mocked Tucker even though she said she had found Christ.

In Texas, 232 people have been executed since 1973, and more than 450 are on death row. If Texas were a nation, it would rank fifth in the world in executions. Studies, reports, and exhaustive newspaper stories have shown that Texas is so careless in executing its executions that it, like Illinois, should call a moratorium on capital punishment.

In May, The Washington Post wrote how death penalty defendants receive lawyers who are chronically inexperienced, incompetent, and indifferent to the point of sleeping at trials. No matter. Bush said, ‘‘I’m absolutely confident that everybody that has been put to death 
 are guilty of the crime charged, and, secondly, they had full access to our courts.’’

In June, the Chicago Tribune found that of 131 Texas executions done under Bush, there were 40 cases of the defense presenting no evidence during sentencing, 29 uses of psychiatric practices that have been condemned by the American Psychiatric Association, and 43 where a defendant was represented by a lawyer who was later disbarred or disciplined.
[
]

The Defenders Service report found rampant racial disparities. African-Americans make up 23 percent of the murder victims in Texas, but fewer than 1 percent of executions result from the murder of African-Americans. White women are only 1 percent of murder victims, but 34 percent of executions result from killings of white women. Asked if Texas should call a moratorium as Illinois has done, Bush said no. Asked why, he said, ‘‘The reason why is I’m confident that every person that has been put to death under our state has been guilty of the crime charged.’’

Such confidence in the face of the evidence borders on the deranged. Three decades ago, a president refused to change course, and it cost thousands of American lives. In two weeks, the nation may elect a president with a similar hubris. If Bush will not change course on the death penalty, there is no telling what he will not change course on if elected president.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102500-101.htm

PGJ your response to my questions was extremely rude. I am not sure how I should respond. I put these questions out there to try to get some back and forth going, so i can understand a little more why you think the way you do. My first reaction was wow, you got very defensive, you were probably pissed that you have no idea why those things happened. It had to be humbling, to have no idea why two huge buildings would collapse so perfectly only after being hit by a plane. I also very seriously wondered how smart you really are, my guess is not very.
Question: how hot does jet fuel burn?
Question: at what temperature does titanium melt?
Question: why are you in the army?
Question: Why did you get so upset with me for asking these questions?

I also noticed that my first question, although easy enough to answer by you pgj, was completely ignored. Ill rephrase, what did the 9/11 commission cite as the “true” reason the buildings fell down?

[quote]Prince Vegeta wrote:


Question: how hot does jet fuel burn?
Question: at what temperature does titanium melt?

[/quote]

These are silly questions.

jet fuel was not the only thing burning. The steel beams did not melt and titanium gets extremely soft (for a metal) at low temperatures.

The jet engines from the planes are not missing.

It was not a missle hitting the Pentagon.

I have a question for you, why would “they” fly airplanes into the WTC but shoot a missle into the Pentagon.

If it was not a plane crashing into the Pentagon, where is the missing flight?

Are the passengers on an island with Elvis or were they kidnapped by aliens?

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Amnesty compares Bush to Pinochet
[/quote]

Unfortunately, JTF, simply because these others oppose your skepticism, and ‘conspiracy mentality’ they wont even pay attention to these statements. However, they are not the only ones at fault


I can understand their skepticism of 9/11 conspiracies etc. But I’m willing to bet some will also deny and argue against the facts that you just presented, or they will be proud to accept them, and express to you how they think it’s necessary to fight terrorism in this way and that the people who are suffering deserve it. And they will think this makes them patriots.

I think this is very sad.

Their pride wont allow them to come to agreement with someone with whom they have so vehemetly opposed, even though it is down to earth and plain to see.

I hope I’m wrong though, and that they wont allow themselves to be so pigheaded and naive.

This can be applied to us all on this forum, including myself and you, JTF.

Remember to ‘absorb what is useful, and reject what is useless.’

So I apologise to all for having been pigheaded and rude in the past by letting my pride inhibit my opportunity to learn.

With help from us all, I hope this debate may continue in a more open-minded and progressive fashion.

-Sep

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The jet engines from the planes are not missing.
[/quote]

Reference please.

This is actually a very good point. While I am skeptical about the whole thing, why wouldn’t they just use another plane?
[/quote]

[quote]
If it was not a plane crashing into the Pentagon, where is the missing flight?

Are the passengers on an island with Elvis or were they kidnapped by aliens?[/quote]

Well, assuming they were willing to kill all those people in the towers, who’s to say they wouldn’t simply kill the passengers meant to be on those planes and dispose of the evidence?

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The jet engines from the planes are not missing.

Reference please.


[/quote]

CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

Doesn’t directly discuss the engines but indicates other parts of the plane were found.

Last I knew we did not include dead bodies in flight uniforms on missles.

The burden of proof is on those that claim the engines were not found.

Of course they would just deny it and make some outrageous claim like the engines were planted.

How did a planes tail section get there? Was it planted?

What happened to the truck bomb theory?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The jet engines from the planes are not missing.

Reference please.




CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

Doesn’t directly discuss the engines but indicates other parts of the plane were found.

Last I knew we did not include dead bodies in flight uniforms on missles.

The burden of proof is on those that claim the engines were not found.

Of course they would just deny it and make some outrageous claim like the engines were planted.

How did a planes tail section get there? Was it planted?

What happened to the truck bomb theory?

[/quote]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

I thought you may need it 5 times since you missed this the other 3 times, you seem to have a very easy time ignoring particular points of an argument.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s about money, noteriety and I think in the case of 9-11 politics. In fact, there may even be a push by the enemy to further these theories in an attempt to tear us apart from within. And might I add, it won’t work!
[/quote]

THE TRUTH! Guys we are actually being controlled by the terrorists in the form of book stores sales of these topics, conversations, and even attempted rational arguments in their attempt to further these theories for the purpose of tearing
us from
WITHIN! SO NEFARIOUS!
AND I’LL TELL YOU WHAT! IT WON’T WORK! AND MIGHT I ADD, BOOYAH BIN LADEN, BOOYAH SADDAM HUSSEIN!
(collateral damage not included)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation

The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans’ belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 “9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future” conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success” (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Zap Branigan wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The jet engines from the planes are not missing.

Reference please.




CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

Doesn’t directly discuss the engines but indicates other parts of the plane were found.

Last I knew we did not include dead bodies in flight uniforms on missles.

The burden of proof is on those that claim the engines were not found.

Of course they would just deny it and make some outrageous claim like the engines were planted.

How did a planes tail section get there? Was it planted?

What happened to the truck bomb theory?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

I thought you may need it 5 times since you missed this the other 3 times, you seem to have a very easy time ignoring particular points of an argument.

[/quote]
For you, three times.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

Doesn’t directly discuss the engines but indicates other parts of the plane were found.

Last I knew we did not include dead bodies in flight uniforms on missles.

The burden of proof is on those that claim the engines were not found.

Of course they would just deny it and make some outrageous claim like the engines were planted.

How did a planes tail section get there? Was it planted?

What happened to the truck bomb theory?
[/quote]

From the Popular Mechanics article


FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’s exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.”

Lie #1:
Now look at the center of this photo

http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/image_archive/pentagon/sgt_jason/in-tact_D.jpg

that initial hole they claim as being “75ft wide” in their article, is clearly NOT.

All you need is two freakin’ eyes.

Lie #2
One wing “hit the ground”. Man, I’ll bet a jet wing digging into the ground at 500mph made one helluva’ gouge in the lawn. (or not)

http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/image_archive/pentagon/sgt_jason/in-tact_B.jpg

Also the professor from Purdue says “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building, it didn’t happen.”

Yet as I explained earlier, that’s not at all how they modeled it. They clearly show the wings cutting through the building.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

More BLATANT contradictions.

Lastly, the “unbiased” Popular Mechanics article held up with such high regard as proof the conspiracy theorists are paranoid/delusional is written and researched by Benjamin Chertoff – cousin of Michael Chertoff (maybe you’ve heard of him)

But in the end your supposed to believe this jet


flown by this guy

A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,” the former employee said. “He could not fly at all.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nyt_hanjour1.html

in this way

Just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
http://911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=294

disappeared into this hole.
http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/image_archive/pentagon/sgt_jason/in-tact_D.jpg

And why is it that the people who are so sure that everything happened the way they say it happened, seem to have NO interest WHATSOEVER in calling for as much evidence as possible to be released considering what’s at stake?

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Even if myself and others are completely wrong, are you willing to accept a complete military dictatorship in the US – even if al qaeda happens to kill 100,000 people?