The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
47 votes

What the Pentagon should have looked like on 9-11

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your links provide further questions.

For one, a group of dead bodies was found still sitting around a table. Supposedly the force was so great it completely disintegrated the plane's wings on impact (the reason the hole was inconsistent with the plane's wingspan) ...and what was found of the plane otherwise, with few exceptions, were but tiny fragments. Yet that impact not only left some passengers found still strapped into their seats, but was not forceful enough to cause a group of unsecured (asphyxiated?) employees to even be knocked off their chairs. Such things haven't been adequately explained. Nor to my knowledge the conflicting testimony of the many (including police officers) who saw the plane approach from a significantly different direction than indicated in the official schematic. I agree with what you pointed out was stated in the video - about it serving no purpose to throw out baseless theories. But some theories do have legs. And, regardless, given the consequences of 911 and numerous anomalies, what purpose is served to not continue investigations?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I don't know how anyone could

I don't know how anyone could be some kind of expert on what the wreckage of a 757 kamikaze attack on the Pentagon "should" look like, so I can't really comment on your problems with that. But the wings and trajectory there is some evidence for.

the wings:
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?"

and on the plane path discrepancies

It's kind of funny to use testimony of eyewitnesses that tell you the path of the PLANE they saw to try and debunk that there WASN'T a plane. Not too mention that there are discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of any event that ever takes place. Many times people can't agree if a guy crossed the goal line or was out of bounds on a football replay even if they watch it several times for example.

$100 and a trip to the junkyard

will give you the same amount of "material evidence" of a plane.

This area was under construction and closed off. It doesn't take Walt Disney's imagination to consider that "plane-like" debris was planted inside the vacant wing with some explosives for effect after flying a drone into it.

Again, where are the wing impact points? How did this "pilot" violate the laws of aerodynamics and fly that low to the ground without losing lift at those high speeds? Why do we only have ONE camera view from a gate booth of the most surveillanced building in the area?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Go to a junkyard with $100

Go to a junkyard with $100 and get the same stuff then and post the pics here for me then will ya. Really prove your point for me.

I can give an answer with links to evidence to back it up for all the questions you've put forth here but I think you already have your mind made up and you will dismiss it anyway. I don't think you are looking for the truth from your comments, you're looking to make your self and your narrative right, not to actually be right.

*Sigh* Alright alright, try this one:

Do you believe that fires brought down the WTC towers or was that controlled demolition?

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I certainly believe it's

I certainly believe it's possible that the WTC were brought down. And I believe that the CIA or Mossad or both had infiltrated, if not created, the group that did it and put them up to it and helped them accomplish it. That's how OKC bombing and WTC in 93 were done and that's is the MO of how the black ops have worked in the past. And there's alot of evidence that supports that theory, like with Able Danger and Colonel Schaffer. But I don't believe that drones or anything else struck the towers like some people do, much in the same way as the Pentagon I think the evidence is overwhelming that the alleged planes were the ones that hit the buildings.

I was being slightly unrealistic, I'll admit

but my point is that having debris that looks like it could be from a plane, yet no impact evidence of said plane just a round hole prior to the roofs collapse and round "blow out" holes on the other side that should have been caused by the front of the plane yet there is no evidence of the front of the plane... simply have a sloppy story to piece together.

My mind is NEVER made up. It's a side effect of being open minded, which is how I got to this conclusion from arabs with box cutters. I would LOVE to see your evidence.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

What evidence have I failed

What evidence have I failed to show on this thread that you would LOVE to see?

I'm sorry but a bunch of scattered junk isn't proof

as much as even I'd like it to be. Listen, I actually bought the original story and I too was at the time "convinced" that it was a plane that hit the building. But then I heard about the supposed plane that crashed into a field leaving nothing but a hole in the ground that I guess was supposed to look like a plane went nose down and then... just disappeared? It melted from "high heat" they said. Then Building 7 just "falls" for no reason??? Ok, something is up here. Then I looked back at the pentagon and saw early shots where all there was present was a round hole. No engine impact points, no wing impact points. You just cannot ignore the facts no matter how much debris there is that LOOKS like plane debris.

If you came to a scene where someone was found dead with what looks like bullet holes in and out of their bodies but found no bullets that exited the body and no holes in any walls, you would either assume that the body was either moved from the original crime scene or that something other than a bullet caused that damage. Here you have bullet holes, possible bullet fragments and no body of a victim but a shoe and a scarf. DO you have enough proof for positive ID of the victim? No, you do not.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I may try to earn trolls respect by sparring with them a little,

some folk just want you to sit down and eat with them too before they'll conspire to do biz wicha. I'll co-pilot any time with you, Freedom, arguing with them helps me practice for when it counts more. And that somehow matters more, increasingly. Go figure! Inspiration is way more enjoyable than schooling, I think we both agree which actually works for learning on a government regulatory level, female inspired, new model for women's rights.... I think may be too bold to bounce off of, many of the freedomly minded souls on this deck.?

I liken this "sparring" to particle physics

where the "particles" are information. You smash these particles together and see what smaller bits break off. Then study those little bits and see if they can fit into your own information. Sometimes you just smash it into a wall, but there are also those rare moments when something new happens.

I just remember that no matter who I speak to, no matter what their opinion, they are ALL my brothers and sister on this round rock. My intention is to present my point of view as respectfully as possible without forcing anything down anyone's throat. You are 100% correct that Inspiration is the key. Lead by example and Inspire those around you. Do not belittle them for their opinions if you would not want your own to be belittled. It's not a way of co-municating we're used to but it far more effective in the end.

I don't like the term "schooling" someone because I don't consider myself a teacher in a position to school others. Rather, I find myself to be a student of life and never trap myself into rigid beliefs. "The only constant is Change" as the saying goes, helps me to remember that we must always be open to new ideas, to new thoughts and new experiences because that is the natural nature of existence. There are no experts in any field because no one will ever get it 100% right. Anyone who thinks so is failing to remember the Only Constant.

The less bound we are by our collected beliefs, the further ahead we are when faced with new information to collide with and watch the sparks fly :)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I can only presume you

I can only presume you haven't looked at much of what I've posted from this comment.

Here's what I don't think you can ignore
1. Over 100 witnesses that SAW a plane fly into the Pentagon, 26 of which specifically stated it was an American Airlines jet.
2. The multiple witnesses from the aftermath/cleanup/investigation that attest to seeing the plane parts and body parts.
3. The plane parts that are found at the scene, many of which can be recognized as being from an American Airlines plane.
4. DNA evidence from all but one of the passengers found at the crash scene.

I mean how can you ignore all that?

Ok so here's what I think you're saying

1. We are meant to take the word of 100 "eye witnesses" rather than seeing camera footage from any number of present surveillance all over the pentagon? Ok.

2. Again, people say they saw body parts but no photographic evidence of said body parts? Ok.

3. Again referencing debris that could as easily been planted prior to the event. We've covered our own opinions on this so let's move on.

4. Oh wait, here's that DNA from the bodies that "witnesses" say they saw.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of government employees out there, it would be impossible to get just a hundred or so of them to give false eye witness statements right? That's right, the corporate media is always truthful and not bought by corporate and government interests.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

1. Of course I'd like to see

1. Of course I'd like to see a good clear video, but yes, the fact that ALL eyewitnesses saw a PLANE does contribute to my belief on the subject, yes it does. Do you have a video or witness that saw anything else? Didn't think so.
2. Again, yes multiple witnesses to body parts and plane debris does contribute to my belief. Do you have evidence of any of the multiple people at the scene saying there were no plane parts or body parts? Or any witnesses that saw the plane and body debris being "planted".
3. Yeah the planted debris thing is pretty silly isn't it.
4. Yes again witness testimony and results from dna testing do contribute to my belief.

I don't believe there were hundreds or thousands of people "planting" debris or giving "false testimony", and I don't see any evidence to support that claim. I definitely don't believe everyone that is a witness to any of this is in on it or lying and if it was something other than a plane there would be witnesses that would say that, but I don't see a single one.

your video link

Shows a planes wings crashing at 500 mph in oat least 40 ft of cement CMU and WINDOWS that show no expected damage..... no marks on the ground from the 4000 lb engines and no damage to the building's foundation or pristine slab (all these pictures are in video"National security alert"). How did the windows not show any evidence of impact? the lawn ended up unscathed at the "impact zone" where even the computer generated model describes deep penetration. All we get is a spinning plume of CG smoke that effectively hypnotized, at least, you. Don't put up these links if you are not prepared to defend their blatant incongruities with the physical crime scene, photos, video, unanimous eye witness reports or physics. Now! Get to work on an answer for me TODAY! after all the tax dollars you get for doing this come from me. I am your boss. Just kiddn. No passenger jet hit the Pentagone, the wings alone prove that. If you want... we can talk about how people somehow vaporized for the first time in plane crash history. OUCH!

Ok. I accept your point of view based on what contributes to it

But you and I can both look at any photo you wish and see no evidence of wing or engine impact.

Forget what witnesses say. Forget what may or may not be debris.

In ANY photo, do YOU YOURSELF see wing or engine impact points?

I cannot see such evidence. Anywhere. And that evidence should be the PRIMARY evidence by which all other evidence should be supported. But if the PRIMARY Evidence is not present, you MUST come to the point to question the evidence that follows.

? + 1 ≠ 2

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Also start at about 1:21:00

Also start at about 1:21:00 of this documentary and watch a few minutes to listen to his explanation with his evidence to support it.

As I have stated before, I'm

As I have stated before, I'm not going to pretend to know what the crash scene of a 757 kamikaze attack on the Pentagon "should" look like. These photos suffice as evidence to me.

Can we agree that more evidence is needed?

Regardless of our differing opinions, it's clear that more evidence could be available but hasn't been provided. Since we both are seekers of Truth, can we settle on our differences and not be divided by subjective opinion?

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

We can agree to disagree. I

We can agree to disagree. I don't really feel that more evidence is needed to come to the conclusion that AA flt 77 was what hit the Pentagon. I need evidence to the contrary in order for me to question it and I don't see any credible evidence to the contrary. Witnesses to anything other than a plane, parts of something else like a drone or missile or whatever people suspect, witnesses that saw people plant plane parts, I need stuff like that to question it at this point and I haven't seen any of that.
I don't have any problem with you, you've been civil in our discussion, we just disagree on this matter. No biggie.


I appreciate you sticking to your guns and being quite civil yourself in this discussion. I think eventually, however long that may take, we'll get the answers.

No problems with you either. We would both be hypocrites to not come to the conclusion that we are entitled to our own opinions even if they are ones we may disagree on.

This, after-all, is what the message of Individual Liberty is all about.

Take care.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin


That just saved me a whole lot of time.

Thanks mrbengal.

Eric Hoffer

Yeah no problem, I've argued

Yeah no problem, I've argued this a few times here on the DP lately so I had the links handy.
I've come to realize that there a quite a few people here on the DP that are not looking for the truth on this issue and will not accept ANY amount of evidence. To me it has to be that they have argued that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon and they won't accept and admit that they are wrong now because then they look foolish to the people they have argued with. Either that or they really want it to not be true for some reason.


It comes up every few months or so in a cycle. I think there's a calendar somewhere that requires a random post to be made and some sort of contest winnings if you're the first to post it.

I'm in agreement. I see it as, "I think the government is evil, therefore if something evil happens, the most likely actor is our government." This is a much easier conclusion to swallow than that there is a whole lot of grey area out there and that our actions might actually have forced some ingenuitive people out in the Middle East to sacrifice their lives to take us down a notch.

I'm loving the eyewitness testimony that says the plane flew away being used to bolster the argument that there was no plane. Don't you wish there was ONE straight 9/11 missile/drone/plane flew away theory that could be refuted and that had actual evidenciary backing as opposed to free form conjecture?

Oh dreams.

Eric Hoffer

we're looking for a 757....'s a.really large aircraft...that's why PILOTS of commercial aircraft put their reputations on the line on Pilots for 9/11 truth websites and articles...

They want the TRUTH....ya know....truth???


Can we compare the percentage of Pilots for 9/11 Truth to the percentage of pilots that are not members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth?

A plane hit the Pentagon. There was tons of debris. It was photographed. Why do you not believe the wreckage is actual wreckage?

Eric Hoffer

Can you please provide the

Can you please provide the "tons of debris" evidence? I have not seen that.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

oops duplicated..

another "majority opinion" debate....

...what draws you here? A hope that you could convert us?

A majority of Republicans support a benevolent dictatorship funded by printing debt notes that are not backed by any tangible asset....a majority of colonists were opposed to challenging the Crown known as "parent government" back in the day....

Any other cogent arguments for this tireless minority that you deem as fools?

You best run along now, your severely outmatched....

Hey, it wasn't my argument

The argument given was: "that's why PILOTS of commercial aircraft put their reputations on the line on Pilots for 9/11 truth websites and articles..." with the implication being that pilots of commercial aircraft would obviously know better than we do, and that pilots in general believe this.

This is obviously false, and my bet would be a very small minority of pilots believe this. Now, I'm the first to say that numbers don't make a position right, but if you're going to try and make the argument that because they're pilots I should shut my mouth, then I'm going to have to pull in the other side, namely that other pilots (many more of them) disagree, and therefore to quit bringing it up.

The same is true of the "Architects for 9/11 Truth." Trying to bring them in as a trump card, when there are a great majority more Architects who disagree, makes the point moot. Obviously, you've misidentified the point being made, or purposely erected the straw man of "obviously numbers and agreement are what makes a position right!"

As for my running along, that's "you're" there genius, not "your."

Eric Hoffer