[Omniscaper]

I am not one for speculation and conspiracy theorizing, but this flash movie brings up some interesting points.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

I dont know if this is old news but I'd like to know everyone's take on this?

[Fineus]

Does anyone have links to the original photos? Whenever this kind of thing shows up I'm always mindful that just as the US Gov could make us believe a jet hit the Pentagon... so could someone else make us believe that it didn't.

So if the original pictures are around, that's where I'd start looking.

[Mefustae]

Hmmm, and i thought it had been taken down due to complaints...

[Omniscaper]

I found these other sites with notes of the contrary, yet using some of the same photos.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

UGH I hate conspiracy theorists. What ever hit the Pentagon (a military target), nothing changes the fact that the WTC went down from terroist hijacked planes. There are enough eye witness accounts, footage, and cell phone recordings to confirm that  fact. But, I am willing to entertain the possibility that the Pennsylvania plane was shot down by a missile. A military move, I feel was necesarry if it indeed happened.

URGH, why am I dwelling on this? %$^@#$^%#&$#&^%

[karajorma]

Don't believe it for a moment. For a start you can't trust a single thing eyewitnesses say. Especially not when you take their comments out of context. You have to take all the comments made together and view what the majority of people say. What the video has done is to only present evidence supporting their claim even though there are many people who actually saw the plane fly into the building.

Secondly what the f**k happened to American Airlines flight 77 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Are they claiming that it didn't exist? Did they land it at Area 51 so the aliens, illuminati and jews could get off? How come we haven't heard from a single AA member of staff saying that the plane didn't exist.


This is just like the moon hoaxers. The stuff seems plausible if you don't know the facts behind it but as soon as you pull on a thread the entire thing unravels.

Originally posted by Omniscaper
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

I found this site very funny. The guy actually seems to believe that the other consipiracy nutjobs like himself who on this occassion don't agree with him are actually simply government agents embarked on some weird kind of mission to discredit legitimate conspiracy theorists like himself.

The fact that these people can simply be morons like himself never enters his mind

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by karajorma
Are they claiming that it didn't exist? Did they land it at Area 51 so the aliens, illuminati and jews could get off?

Hey, now that's just derogatory. I get your point, but please think of the readers that might be offended by this! Seriously, spare a thought for the Alien and Illuminati readers at HLP ...

Originally posted by karajorma
This is just like the moon hoaxers. The stuff seems plausible if you don't know the facts behind it but as soon as you pull on a thread the entire thing unravels.

Would you stop bashing the moon hoaxers already! I'm beginning to take it personally!!

[karajorma]

If you still believe the moon landing was a hoax you deserve all the bashing you get.

[redmenace]

I am not even sure what the truth is anymore. I am also so tired of the entire event being repeatedly brought up. Honestly, it is 4 years since it happened.

On a side note...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?ei=5065&en=2aeff500108cbed3&ex=1124942400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1124533405-muTT5xXpc1NPz4CYBmrr+Q

Seems like all of this will never go away. I honestly don't care whos fault it is anymore.

[karajorma]

While it's something that needs investigating the FBI were aware of the terrorists from other sources and largely ignored them anyway. This probably would have resulted in more of the same.

[redmenace]

Well from what I understand, they were told not to bring them in for questioning because they were in the US legally.

I am certain this is a biased source but:
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/abledanger.asp
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9755.htm
and I initially heard about all this from this guy http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/

[karajorma]

Which does of course mean that any information provided by the military wouldn't have had any effect on the terrorist's legal status and that they probably still wouldn't have been brought in.

 What needs to be investigated is why the information wasn't presented and how the FBI should react to information like this.

[redmenace]

Well, everything I have heard points to basically a political decision by people in the previous administration. From what I understand, they didn't want to be embarrised or something like that. And actually Atta didn't even have a green card at that time. There were also explicit blocks on sharing information.

[vyper]

I've seen this before, read other websites with cases made on them, and watched 9/11 In Plane Site.

I find a great deal of what is argued to be full of holes, but what is undeniable is that there are many questions to be answered about the official account of what happened that morning. WTC7 was brought down by emergency charges designed to take down a building in the event it endangers other city areas - so why did the official statements allude to fire damage? Why is no one in the media asking if the twin towers suffered the same fate?

Why is it so rediculous or "insensitive" to ask the questions any rational thinking person would want to ask when presented with these issues?

Go read up on the origins of the neo-con ideology, and of the islamic extremist, and you may understand why I am willing to hear these arguments made.

[EtherShock]

It is good to ask questions. Vyper does have a point. The towers appear to implode rather than fall to pieces.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by EtherShock
It is good to ask questions.

I'll never dispute that. The best way to learn it to ask "Why did that happen?" The problem with the first link is that it goes beyond "Why did this happen?" and onto "This must be why this happened!". That's a very shaky statement to make considering how easily most of its claims can be proved false.

Originally posted by EtherShock
Vyper does have a point. The towers appear to implode rather than fall to pieces.

If you watch them fall you'll notice that they "implode" starting on the floors which were most damaged by the crash. Do you really think that if they wanted to blow up the towers they would get someone to go up to the top of the still burning tower in order to plant explosives?

Cause who would be stupid enough to risk that?

The implosion you see was not caused by explosives. The towers collapsed from the sheer weight of the floors above crashing down on them. It's like a collapsing house of cards. The weight of the upper decks destablises the lower ones and the whole thing basically flattens itself.

[aldo_14]

The Twin Towers were built in a sort of tube arrangement.  When the plane impact destroyed the exterior load bearing supports, the 'responsibility' for bearing weight fell onto the floors, which were weakened by the intense fire.  As such the supports buckled and the towers collapsed.

The reason for the imposion effect is pretty simple; weight.  In order to shift the centre of gravity (from the base) would need to have shifted about 100ft to make the towers 'topple'; with a 500m tonne building, that would take more than even a fuelled jetliner.  With the weakening & collapsing floors (again) from the fire, the inner supports were buckling inwards rather than two one side.

Just imagine the effect of dropping one multi-story skyscraper directly onto the top of another.  The downwards momentum would keep it going straight down - that's exactly what happened to the towers.

[Kie99]

The arguments in the video seem pretty good at first glance, but the thing is, I don't believe that if the US Government wanted to make people believe it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, when it wasn't, they'd do that bad a job that every conspiracy nut can start a website and convince people.

[Unknown Target]

The thing that made me discredit this entire site in about 30 seconds was when it said "...before the mind control machine went into effect..."
That's just retarded.
However, it does make some interesting arguments, and questions that should be answered. Can anyone point me to a link about the whole missing aircraft parts thing?

About the WTC towers: I watched a History Channel special on the Twin Towers (I'm not saying that makes me an expert, just listen), and they said that in the event of a catostrophic structural failure, then the buliding was designed to hold up for at least two hours before collapse. Guess how long it held up for?
Then you make the argument that there were charges at the bottom of the buildings. Why would that be there? Do they plant explosive charges at the bottom of all buildings nowadays? I don't recall hearing that the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc has them.

[Descenterace]

'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity/bureaucracy'.

A maxim that conspiracy theorists have never heard of.

They see one piece of evidence that things are not as the government tell them, and they begin to construct a huge paranoid hypothesis from it.
Apparent coverups could just as easily be the result of some bureaucrat guarding his territory jealously against competition. Or a file getting lost somewhere in a cabinet.

Frankly, I can't see why the US government would stage an attack on the Pentagon. Nor can I see what they would stand to gain by covering up the use of a cruise missile by terrorists in the attack.
Compared to the attack on the Twin Towers, no one gives a damn about the Pentagon.

[EtherShock]

You're right about that. A simple survey could provide evidence few care or think about the Pentagon when they hear 9/11. Unless you surveyed the DC area maybe.

Is there any video of the attack on the Pentagon or prior to, or do we just have pictures to go by?