-21 votes

The 9/11 Pentagon Challenge

This is an open challenge to anyone who believes that American Airlines flt 77 was not flown into the Pentagon in a kamikaze attack by hijackers. This challenge has nothing to do with any other theories concerning 9/11, only the theory that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Provide ANY real evidence to support that claim. Opinions of what flight path is possible or not, or opinions of what a kamikaze attack scene "should" look like, are not real evidence. Sorry to those who that may seem a little condescending to, but there are people on this site that not only think opinions are real evidence, some call a persons opinion "irrefutable evidence".

For example, this video:
I know some people love it, but there is not one piece of evidence in this whole documentary that is not an opinion. And it attempts to build a case that a plane did not hit the Pentagon from eyewitness testimonies that SAW THE PLANE. And they intentionally do not interview any of the many people who saw the plane hit then Pentagon, because that doesn't fit there story.

Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Photo or credible documentation of any piece or part of a missile or anything else, other than the American Airlines plane found in the wreckage of Pentagon.
Any eyewitness account to the scene afterwards during the cleanup or investigation that either say they saw no plane wreckage, or they saw plane wreckage being planted.
Real video of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Comments that are solely insults and/or personal attacks and that have no links to evidence, will be assumed to be because YOU COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY REAL EVIDENCE. I understand some of you are frustrated by that inability and will personally attack me anyway, that's fine, expose your inability to produce anything to defend your argument. That's why I challenge you to do it.

For evidence that American Airlines did indeed hit the Pentagon on 9/11, see these links:

That is a good summary of my real evidence. You can look through this thread and compare the evidence for the differing theories and make your own decision.
UPDATE:I am done answering repetitious comments asking questions or showing evidence I have already addressed. So if you don't get a reply, it's probably because I have already addressed what you state/show and you can find my answer in this thread already. Anything new I will eventually reply to.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm sorry,

but I don't think the Secretary of Defense would confuse a plane with a missile.
No-one who wasn't "in the loop" made those words interchangeable.
I haven't heard one fireman nor eye witness on that day interchange those two words. No-one said they saw missiles slamming into the WTC, when they actually meant planes.

sharkhearted's picture


Sometimes, Jill, you have to take on complete idiots who use sophistry and smoke and mirrors to propagate the idiocy.

But the real pathetic part about it is that they think they are disinforming us...when in reality that can not happen in this Age of Information.


Can't happen. Physically impossible LOL.

Long live freedom!

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I think they are doing a great job.

There are far more threads pointing to the fact that people within the Government of the day, lied to and mislead the citizens of the US.
I have researched 9/11 for years, and am still finding new clips and articles that I haven't seen before!
I am with you sharkhearted...long live freedom.

The first quote by Donald

The first quote by Donald Rumsfeld
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

That sentence doesn't even make much sense. My guess, that I am sure won't be good enough for you, is that he said "as a missile" not "and the missile" and the transcript is just slightly wrong. Right after that it says inaudible, so apparently it was somehow hard to hear what he was saying, I don't know where or how this interview took place. Turn the closed caption on your tv on and you'll see what I mean. But anyways, he says American Airlines flight.

The other quote he says "plane missile". That's exactly what it was, a plane used as a missile.

...and this guy wouldn't lie to you ether

Ahh, the eloquence of George Bush.
Strange that there are 3 "misquotes" about explosives and missiles on 9/11.
I'm sorry that you have to keep defending the indefensible. Such a waste of a citizen who could use his time and energy to help bring the US back to her roots.

Hey Jill Booth, look through

Hey Jill Booth, look through here a little and see what I think about 9/11. Because you keep saying things about stuff I'm not defending.

Then what exactly is your point?

Is it that you think the official story of 9/11 is not true, but the bit about flight 77 is?
I'm not being obtuse, but I really don't know where you are coming from.
A little clarity would help.

In short yeah. I've already

In short yeah. I've already explained this to a couple of people in this thread. Look down to my reply to MykeTheVet, that starts As I have said, I believe.

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was “shot down”

Another slipup which they tried to explain away. That makes two. Then there’s Bush who made false claims about what he saw and when proven to be impossibilities.

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was " shot down." ...strays from the official story of ...

This is impossible. There was no live coverage or news video of the first crash. The only existing video was taped by a French team, the Naudet brothers ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3s4_dkKn8Y - Cached

"Provide ANY real evidence to support that claim."

the problem you are making is you take the "official" story as fact.

When you do this you make an assumption that a plane hit it regardless of ANY real evidence besides a manufactured story from known liars.

You need to apply real evidence to the whole situation, and not use the official story as a foundation to work from.

This comment shows you

This comment shows you haven't even looked through this thread at all.


It shows I wasn't impressed anyway.

It shows you open your mouth

It shows you open your mouth without doing research, so shouldn't take your opinions as anything credible anyway.

do you have ANY technical credentials at all?

why are you asking us these questions? and blowing off real pilots who answer?
are you not aware of how close the pentagon is to the interstate?

hahahaha!!! look what I did ....


I started that thread, in the community where I ran for state representative in 2008!!!

BOLD as a BENGAL TIGER wouldn't ya say!

Hahahaha....oh the can of worms you opened...
(and you're getting SLAUGHTERED here as well)

[I am listening to lectures tonight on the American Revolution, from Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom...it helped me make this AWESOME parallel; " and THINK how the colonists objected to the taxes imposed upon them for the costs associated with the French/Indian war of 1754-1763, as well as how offended they were when asked to pay for the standing armies defending what they took as the Crown claimed, was done "for their benefit and protection".Anyone see a pattern here?  Empire expanding?  Parent government does it "for us", and sticks us with the war/security bill?"

Thank you for this OP!!!

Looks like you plea for help,

Looks like you plea for help, hasn't.

that wasn't a "plea for help"...

...that was an exhibition of how guys like you FAIL in your attempts to silence our patriotic call to duty.

The real unemployment in that community is literally 30%, they're not friendly to our message that Democrats run their Republican Party, and our government is hellbent on keeping them there.

I ran for State Representa there in 2008...I only got 1,024 votes, only 2%; but I feel better that I did that as superficially embarrassing as it seems, rather than join your unthinking and antagonizing ranks whereby you contribute to those who treat us as the ENEMY, and consequently perpetuate the dependency on government.

Ridicule is not often the test of TRUTH, you need to learn that...I have GOOD REASON to alarm people over a decade later to revisit the Pentagon questions raised by Architects, Engineers, Firefighters, and Pilots...Now that we can see the fruit of 9/11...


Evidently you are not an aircraft pilot.

I am , and making that turn and hitting that building where it was hit without practicing about 30 times would be impossible for me with 1700+ hours of flight time. It would be like 3 steel stuucture buildings totally falling into their on footprint from office funiture fires on the same day. You my friend have been dupped by the government you care so much for.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Guess you didn't read this in

Guess you didn't read this in my post:
Provide ANY real evidence to support that claim. Opinions of what flight path is possible or not, or opinions of what a kamikaze attack scene "should" look like, are not real evidence. Sorry to those who that may seem a little condescending to, but there are people on this site that not only think opinions are real evidence, some call a persons opinion "irrefutable evidence".

or look down through the comments at all, your not the first to give their professional opinion that the flying maneuvers were "impossible".

Btw, can you give me your name or what airline you fly for so I don't ever fly them. I'm half scared of flying anyway and you don't inspire confidence in me for your piloting.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer II to Challenge number 3

YOU SAID: " Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Any eyewitness account to the scene afterwards during the cleanup or investigation that either say they saw no plane wreckage, or they saw plane wreckage being planted."

How about the eyewitness and videographic evidence of Bob Pugh. He freelances for all the big boys....CNN CBS NBC...etc. Listen to his interview.


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

at 7:26 "The largest piece I

at 7:26
"The largest piece I believe I saw was maybe 2 x 3 ft., and it was crumpled. I believe that is the piece that everybody sees with a blue stripe...well..er..it had red paint on it like a logo."

So he saw debris, albeit mostly small debris that he could not make out what it is. He saw that piece that above. He saw a small mechanical arm, some thought could be part of the landing gear. I mean, what does this guy really provide for evidence? Yeah he estimates the hole small, but it's him (a cameraman) estimating from a distance. The hole seems to be bigger than that to me in these pictures.

He did not get up close, he said he knew to stay back out of the way. The vast majority of wreckage is inside the building as you would expect with a plane flying 500 mph into it. If you through a baseball through a window would you expect parts of baseball outside the window? No, it would be inside where the momentum carried it.

Just come to terms here shark. Look at the difference in evidence. This does not change anything about beliefs that elements of our or other governments were involved. This thread has convinced me even more that AA flt 77 hit the Pentagon, as no one has provided any good real evidence that it didn't. The only thing anyone provided that I don't remember seeing before is the cockpit door deal, and wasn't hard to find that was faulty info as well.

Find anything else, I'll take a look.

SteveMT's picture

"If you through (the word is throw) a baseball through a window"

This is not a good comparison. How about a near empty pop can going into a brick wall. Where would you expect the wreckage to be now? We were told that the WCT's outside steel reinforced "mosquito netting" was not strong enough to keep a plane outside. The core columns of the WTC were also not designed strong enough and they were sheered. Then neither of these buildings were designed correctly to resist a total catastrophic collapse. Now you say that a bunker-like solid concrete steel reinforced building like the Pentagon is also not strong enough to keep a plane out, although prior to its collapse, the front of the Pentagon looked relatively unscathed.

Yeah I seen I misspelled that

Yeah I seen I misspelled that but didn't feel the need to change it because I think what I meant was clear. I also didn't think it was the best analogy but was first thing that came to mind and again, I think what I meant was clear.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the amount of damage prior to the collapse.
some pre-collapse damage pics are on here, with measurements

Yes the WTC construction video says that because of the reinforced steel frame of the building, a plane hitting it would go through like pushing a pencil through a screen. Doesn't say it would stop a plane or keep it out, just says it wouldn't effect the overall stability of the frame. I don't know who would expect a wall to keep a commercial jet flying at 500+mph out. That would be like an impenetrable fortress, you'd have to nuke a place like that I guess.

SteveMT's picture

An honest answer, that I can accept. Thanks.

What is a better analogy then? When you have some time, think about what would be better if you also don't accept my pop can/brick wall comparison. There should have been more clearly identifiable plane wreckage on the outside of the building, IMO.

Check these out

Like a pumpkin through a car door? lol


Here are holes through battleships from kamikaze attacks during WWII. Look similar to me. Of course no way to see what wreckage went in and went out with it being in the water but can kind of compare damage.


Look at the hole on this one and the very light wing marks you can see.

The best evidence for no-plane is in the live news reports

According to the live news reports here: http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive - the hole in the building is too small. You cannot fit a 130 feet plane into a 30 feet hole. This is obvious.

They blew a hole in the wall and REPORTED that a plane had crashed. No need for a missile. That is the reason for the NORAD stand down – no plane. News reporters can be controlled and read the script you want. Actors can be found and used as witnesses. Then you can create and REPORT the story you like – with full control. Just like they do it in Hollywood all day long.

The important and difficult part is to get the movie broadcasted on live news. If you can do that on all networks simultaneously, over and over again until people themselves starts to spread the lie, then you are in business.

im just pissed that the sequester

Caused the pentagon to turn off most of their surveillance cameras so that we only have 4 frames to review.

I mean, its a sad day when our beloved peacekeepers have to choose between monitoring and storing every Americans communications and monitoring their own physical grounds

So far a big fail for the No Plane Hit crowd

Not one picture of a missle. Not one witness of a missle, not one sighting of a known living passenger of AAL77.

A Flying Dragon did it?

I can get you the witnesses you need if you pay me. You can write the script you want. No problem. I know many former porn actors, and they will say what you like if you pay.

You have mischaracterized

You have mischaracterized those in my profession.

We are honest people