There are a lot alternative scenarios that come to my mind. Is that the only one that you think is possible? Maybe there was a small base somewhere in which only people with top security clearances could go--something similar to area 51.

If this is in fact what happened, they probably killed them with poison gas while they were still inside the plane, then towed the plane into a hanger, removed the bodies and did what was necessary to make them look like they'd been in a crash, and then took the remains to the morgue. Then they did a chop-job on the plane. It's grizzly, but feasible.

Wouldn't there have been parts from two engines? Again, all the parts that allegedly came from a 757 were small enough to have been carried. Speaking of carrying things--what are they carrying under this blue tarp in the first picture on this page.
http://911exposed.org/DebrisStaged.htm

All I can say is that you seem to be in denial. It's so clear that the sun-lit side and the shadow side can be easily made out. The shadow line is right where it's supposed to be if you compare it with the shadow of the Pentagon. Please answer this question--do you see what I'm referring to?

Maybe it was a remote-controlled fighter which fired a depleted uranium missile just before it hit.
Maybe thousands did see it and the press just didn't report it. I'm not sure exactly how they pulled it off. I just know they did it somehow because this is the front of a plane with a nose that's too pointed to be that of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

I don't know exactly what happened. They did it somehow though. See above.
It was probably too difficult to pull off. They would have had to kill everybody on the plane with sarin gas or something and then guide it remotely from another plane flying nearby. Using a remote-controlled fighter was easier.
Please tell me if you can see what I think is the sun-lit part on the top and the shadowed area on the bottom of the object in question. Do you see what I'm referring to?

It says here that radioactivity was detected after the crash. That's evidence of a Uranium missile.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/xymphora/pentagon.htm
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/kno...hp?itemid=3059

Take a look at the object shot into the tower just before the 767 hit it.
Start watching at the 1 min. 30 sec. mark. It lasts until the 4 min. mark.
http://www.question911.com/linkout.p...nge%201of4.wmv
Maybe the same thing happened at the Pentagon.

Having that part covered would be an essential part of the plan. All I can do is call them but how am I supposed to know that the person on the line is telling the truth? People can be bribed, blackmailed, or replaced a few weeks before the plan is carried out in a situation like this. Someone's showing me some records is evidence but not proof.

In this link click where it says "(Watch what the cameras caught as the plane slams into the Pentagon -- 2:21)"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html
The object in question is described as the nose of the craft by CNN. It looks exactly the same as the object in the picture I've been posting.
Here it is on another link.
http://911review.org/Reports/NEW_VIDEO.html
As far as I know this is what the government released. If it was doctored, the government doctored it. If the government was going to doctor something, wouldn't they doctor it to make it look like the unmistakable nose of a 757 instead of the nose of an aircraft that is too pointed to be a 757?
If the pieces found were small enough to be carried by seven people, they could have been planted. They might have even been put inside before the crash.

Please go into more detail. Do you see what I'm referring to when I say the top is sun-lit and the bottom is shady? Do you see the difference in color?

Please tell me if you can see the different colors on the object which I think are the sun-lit side and the shadow side. You don't have to say it's the nose of an aircraft--just say if you can see what I'm referring to.

Here's something else.

I found this while browsing. I'd never thought about this. The fuel tanks in the wings were far apart. There would have been two explosions if a 757 had hit the Pentagon--maybe three if there are fuel tanks in the fuselage.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bra.../pentagon.html
(exerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gas tanks were 90ft apart,so there should be 2 explosions 90ft from each other,
not one central explosion which we see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also--I found this while browsing too. It's the video from the hotel. It shows the smoke coming from the crash site but the plane is out of view.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4783#comment

Translation..."I haven't a clue how to evaluate evidence, but since I blindly believe everything I read it CT sites, it must be true."

David...you're credulousness is showing...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Please tell me if you see the color contrast that I think is the sun-lit side and the shadow side of the object in question.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

This object is the front of something. What that something is--I don't know but it's not the front of a 757. Therefore, all of these other details are moot.
Please answer the above question.

I have been having fun just kicking back with my pocorn watching this debacle but this one I had to comment on.


Your "blue tarp" is a blue tent that they are carrying into the crash area.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/090.html


This just shows how poor David C's "research" skills are, even the loose change guys have admitted they were wrong on this one. If he can get something as simple as this wrong that I wont put much credibility into any other "evidence" he supports.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

David C believes. He believes will all his heart and soul. SO much though that he refuses to admit that he might even be wrong. And he is incredibly wrong.

I know the size of some of the parts found after the crash. All piled together, and MIXED IN with the Pentagon rubble. You simply can not have a person just wander in, and 'drop them;. Some of those parts weigh a few hundred pounds. In order to do that, you would have to back a dump truck, full of 757 parts into the hole, dump it all, than mix it up witha backhoe. And no-one has reported *that* yet.

(Though now I bet David C will)

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Thanks for those links. Informative, and more evidence to use against people like David C (Though they will never believe 'mere' evidence.)

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

That is all the speculation in that post, and wow, there's a lot of it. "Maybe" and "might" aren't argument. You want to say people are lying? Fine. Prove it. Or, since there's no such thing as proof in science, show some evidence, any evidence, that, say, no journalist picked up on what would have been a Pulitzer Prize-winning story about thousands of people who saw something other than a 757 who were never interviewed!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Not even feasible. "coulda, shoulda woulda." Where's the proof of this. You're speculating and asserting again without a shred of evidence. And you think this trumps the physical evidence. Not even wrong.

Dealt with by others. More assertions. Not even wrong.

Again, why should a smudgy, blurred video trump the physical evidence you're so desperate to discredit? Not even wrong.

More assertions without a shred of evidence. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta." People saw a 757 hit the Pentagon. The emergency crews found the bodies of passengers and pieces of the plane painted with the AA logo. You assert that the eyewitnesses were lying and that the evidence was planted. No legs to stand on. Not even wrong.


Finally, a correct statement from Dave. Aint that the truth.

You wish.

More assertions of poison gas. Now we're onto the fighter again. Have you ever seen an F-4, an F-14, an A-3 up close. I have. They don't look like 757's and don't carry anywhere near the number of people required for the bodies found. Back to assertions of planted evidence. Not even wrong.

Irrelevant. The physical evidence shows a 757 hit the Pentagon. The video is not conclusive evidence regardless of your desire to beleive so.

So what was it? A fighter? A cruise missile? A drone? What is a Uranium missile? The explosion certainly wasn't nuclear. How much radiation was found? Was is consistent with that expected from the background? Why aren't the resue workers dying of cancer? More assertions. Not even wrong.

Why should it matter what I or you see in the video? Eyewitnesses (admittely not all) saw an AA 757 hit the Pentagon. Wreckage from the airplane in qustion was found at the site. The bodies of the passengers on the airplane were found at the site. Personal items such as passports, drivers licenses, and wedding rings were found at the site. All of this is hard physical evidence of the kind you will never know. Your desperate attempts to discredit it with "coulda shoulda woulda" assertionsare lame and everyone here except you knows that. Sure it "could" have been planted if you assume an extraordinarily adept conspiracy. The simplest explanation is that all of the wreckage arrived there on the 757 that hit the building.

Oh goody.

What else is new?

The airplane impacted the building within a fraction of a second. While there may have been three separate explosions on the low resolution low frame rate videos you're so fond of they would appear as one. Also, I'm not sure but others here can fill me in, there is evidence of scortch marks on the walls of the building consistent with the wing and engine impacts and explosions. Otherwise, this is more mere assertion. Not even wrong.

I saw the smoke from my office as well. Why should the plane that penetrated into the building and left wreckage inside as it destroyed itself be visible from the Mariott? More assertion. Not even wrong.

So we have yet another classic DaveC posting. Full of innuendo and assertion without a shred of evidence. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Like I said Dave, come back when you have a bridge for sale.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Not to mention that many of his links actually contradict his speculation. For instance...

Hmm... Perhaps you could point out to us the "real" 757 that you claimed just missed the Pentagon by flying over it instead. By your standards, this video should be clear enough.

Good luck.

Some airplanes use depleted uranium as ballast. There also may have been some radioactive materials in the Pentagon. Many common items have some radioactive materials in them. Smoke detectors for instance have Americium

It has been shown that it is impossible for the object on the tape to be the plane as it would have been moving to fast for the 1 frame per second, slow scan camera to record it clearly. An alternate hypothesis that is much more likely is that what you are seeing is smoke from one of the engineswhich would be moivng slower and able to be captured on film. Smoke would also show a sunlit side and shadow side. Are you sure it is not smoke?

The blue tarp is a tent they were carrying in. As most in the picture are carrying it with one arm above their heads and don't appear to be struggling, it was definitely not aircraft parts.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

"Ludicrous speed, go!"

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Okay guys, David C's argument can be dismantled without resorting to schoolyard taunts. Those, themselves, can turn off the "silent masses" that read these threads and garner him undeserved sympathy.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Some of us have answered your question. You just refuse to listen. It's smoke from the left engine of the 757 shaped object in front of the smoke cloud. Why would they use a beige F-4? Why not a camoflaged one? Why an F-4? Why not a plane that was still in the inventory? Where's the F-4's engines in the debris? There's more 757 wreckage than F-4 wreckage. If there's supposed to be no sign of an aircraft crashing, how could it be an F-4? An F-4 is an aircraft. If the 757 was supposed to bounce off and scatter all over the lawn, why did this F-4 completely disappear? If it fired off a missle before it hit, why is there a 8 foot hole? A missle is only a few inches wide. How did this one lone antique fighter plane cause all that damage?

It seems that your fighter created more questions than it answers. But one more - the military, CIA, MIB, whoever is supposed to be so brainwashed and fanatical that they will murder off a bunch of it's own people, chop them up and scatter their body parts all over the place and yet they cared enough about their own to use remote control antique fighter. Not even one of these imagined maniacs was suicidal? They are willing to kill thousands on the orders of their evil masters but not one is willing to kill himself in the great plot?

Why couldn't they use a remote controlled 757?

How did they manage to hijack the flight, fly out to this super secret remote base, kill everybody, chop them up, chop up and entire aircraft and get it all back to the pentagon in the couple of hours between take off and the crash? I'll allow that some secret base exists in the east even though Area 51 is way out west and it's not very much of a secret even out there.

This doesn't sound a bit farfetched to you? It sure does to me.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I found this while browsing. I'd never thought about this. The fuel tanks in the wings were far apart. There would have been two explosions if a 757 had hit the Pentagon--maybe three if there are fuel tanks in the fuselage.
David, as the 757 hit the pentagon and entered it it was shed to pieces.
The leaking Jet fuel spread too. Parts of it became gas, a gas cloud formed.
At the point the fuel-air mix became ignitable it did and exploded.
This is not hollywood where a car explodes the millisecond it gets hit.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

They could have lend one from the Deutsche Luftwaffe.
We are just sorting out these old planes to replace them.

That gives the whole story an even more strange touch.
On one side we gave the F4, on the other side we refused to participate in the Irak war.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Charming.

No, but it makes more clearly what the other is showing.

They are pointing at areas in the photo. Areas where some believe the plane can or could possibly be seen. You are entitled to your opinion that you are not convinced by that. No problem. Many people on this board think it's more likely the white rather than the changing part in front of it show whatever hit the pentagon. Again, you are entitled to that opinion. The picture is not of a quality to judge this with any certainty, so we can't get further than opinions on that.

Charming.

Charming. All that love in one post.

HAve done that, that's why I respond to it.

Not 100% convinced, but OK, if only for the sake of argument. The white thing is the nose of the aircraft.

Prove it. Prove it cannot be a 757.

This is no argument pro jets. If it were a 757, this would be just as valid. If it was thick smoke, this would be just as valid. If it were a shiny cow, this would be just as valid.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Do they have Charolais cattle on the pentagon lawn?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

The wingtanks of the 757 are not 90 feet apart, they are inboard of the engines. The center tank is part of the wing box center section.
90 feet apart? Somebody is either ignorant or lying through their teeth. Real credible "source" there, David.

Somehow, David C's version reminds me of some sort of computer game. Where you look at the info box for how much to bribe someone with, and they never break their silence. Where you have faceless minions who do exactly what they're told (on a government salary), no matter how distasteful. It's like "Truman's Show", but we're all Truman except for those in the conspiracy.

Not to mention that even if the witnesses didn't know what they were involved with, by now it should be blindingly obvious that it wasn't exactly Truth, Justice and the American way they were supporting. And yet noone chickens out, noone speaks to a reporter. Not a one.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

"Ludicrous speed, go!"

I think he skipped ludicrous speed and went straight to plaid.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

That's not proof. Maybe CNN is lying. Maybe they are part of the conspiracy. Maybe there are parts of the government that are fighting with other parts and they released the video. Maybe they took a clear video and made it fuzzy so that we all would waste our time arguing over it and not have the time to search for THE TRUTH. The second link is something called 911review.org - maybe they are lying.

If the government or whoever you think the bad guys are in this are as all powerful as you make them out to be - that they could kill hundreds or thousands of civilians (or at least make them disappear), use nerve gas at a public airport, magically transport all this evidence of a plane into a burning building within sight of public streets and a major highway without anyone seeing them - then why did they release the one video that proves it all wrong? If they can kill off all those people to do all this bad stuff, then why are you and the people who create all these videos you love to link to still alive?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Its illogical to think that a 757 was not involved, I dont remember the exact quote I read elsewhere, but it went something like this.

"If your conspiracy says that a 757 is going to crash into a building then you better be darn sure you have a 757 handy to crash"

In other words if for some reason the conspirators cant find a 757 to crash they better be looking for another story that doesn't include a 757. If all the could find was an old F-4 to crash the better have a good story about how a radical Muslim got his hands on one.

You cant have it both ways, the conspirators can't be smart enough to pull this off and yet dumb enough not to use a 757.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

Especially when there is a 757 that went missing. Why not just use it?

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Has anyone ever noticed that the decision to invade Iraq, and Afganistan, came before the purported reason to ?

The pipeline in Afganistan, and the Oil under deserts of Iraq, were greatly desired, and right on que (Two weeks after Rice tells Taliban give us the pipeline or else) 911 happens...

He certainly does deserve sympathy.
He ignores evidence that contridicts his beliefs as he desires, doesn't bother to find real evidence, and has demostrated many times a lack of relavent knowledge, as well as an ability to speak his own mind and do proper research (i.e, research of original sources, not those of CT websites that have been quote mined to support a crazy idea).

This statement really gets me:
Does he even know what Area 51 is?
Do you, David C, believe Area 51 is a convienent place for the govt to dump all people that would expose "the truth"?
If so, why is Dylan Avery still around to spread the garbage that is his fake "documetry" Loose Change?
If the govt was as all powerful and cold blooded as you make it out to be, there would be a lot more people dissapearing every day. And we would never have a chance to see the videos and links you have.

Tell me this (as has been asked before):

Why is it not possible for you to believe that a 757 caused the damage, but likely that a fighter jet did?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I think that's a little too close to violating the Political Rule.

Please review the rules concerning this.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Not to mention the disgusting undertones implied.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

DavidC, the most demanding portion of any flight is landing the aircraft safely. You assert that the aircraft was remotely controlled and landed yet also assert that something else was substituted to hit the Pentagon because it would be too difficult to crash the 757 into the Pentagon.

First of all this means that the remote flight capability is somehow available to control an F4, or some such, well enough to crash it into the building, but not the more stable aircraft, the Boeing 757, and secondly that the remote capability is available to safely land a Boeing 757 but not to crash a Boeing 757.

If the purpose was to hit that specific wing of the Pentagon then the perpetrators could hit the building anywhere in a 50 foot height(first 5 floors) and 300 foot width area and be successful. If one is going to safely land a Boeing 757 one will have to do better than +/- 25 feet in height and better than +/- 150 feet laterally lest one undershoot or overshoot the runway or land on the inter runway grass!(if my calculations are correct, being 25 feet too high or too low in a 3 degree landing slope will result in a difference of touchdown point of 477 feet)

Therefore, no, what you propose isn't feasible!

As for using Sarin gas. Also not feasible since this would be detectable in autopsy. If you had actually done any research at all then you would find that if you wanted to gas them your better bet would be to use carbon monoxide since it would put them to sleep quietly, then , after the plane lands, inject each one with an overdose of insulin. Almost undectable, especially in a badly burnt body.

Or!!!!!!!!!! ,, maybe they didn't do it and instead the plane was hijacked by fundementalist Islamics on a suicide mission. I don't know exactly how Hanjour did it but he did, somehow.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

Actually, you can.
Above the tree in this pic is one of von Kleist's "cameras".
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/4411.jpg

Here's the original pic von Kleist used for his "camera" musings.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...-8006R-005.jpg

Here's another one of those "cameras" on the side of the heliport.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/4486.jpg

Here are the "cameras" all together.


David C, why would you think these are cameras? They sure look like ordinary lights to me. You know, like those on these pics you keep mentioning.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/annex1.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/ancam2.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/ancam.jpg

Why, dog gone it, these cameras at Navy Annex are also mounted on the same arching poles. Just like all the cameras at the Pentagon, allow me to show this one again.
http://www.newsfollowup.com/images/d...-3235P-002.jpg

Why would you say those are cameras, David C? Just because v. Kleist says so? Just because you've read it on the internet?

And on another subject - David C, what is in the following picture?
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re...-00-normal.jpg
Direct question - is it visible with the naked eye or does one need special tools to see it? Let me help you a bit - it's the Sombrero Galaxy (also known as M104 or NGC4594). Its apparent magnitude is about +8. The higher the number, the fainter the celestial object. Human eye can see objects to about magnitude +6. This might be of help.

Repeating the question, it shouldn't take two minutes to answer it, let alone two hours - is the Sombrero Galaxy visible with the naked eye or does one need special tools to see it? Would you agree with a statement saying that our eyes have limited capabilities and that we need special tools to see certain things?

Dave is just pulling our leg. The conspiracy claims are absurd and obvious cries for attention.