-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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cT8WWt61eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue6PniAv0r8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbhbXMfh6eQ

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:
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77ev...
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkqLTpnyBd0

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.

Comment viewing options

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

MrBengal,

The Pentagon is a tough one.

You have done a good job of drawing out the truthers that don't have clear evidence. I don't have clear evidence either but nor do you provide clear evidence. KEYWORD: Clear. I could pick at your witnesses a bit if I wanted to take the time. The fisheye camera is not clear evidence. I mean it is just not clear enough to me what is in those pictures.

What you and I both are lacking is a professional report by the NTSB of the accident investigation. Is there one?

Clearly on 911, someone at the Pentagon gave the order for people to go out on the lawn and start picking up debris. Why? What other crime scene would ever ever EVER be treated like that? Where is that debris and where is an analysis of the debris.

It would appear that your veteran pilot Phillip Marshall thinks it was a Bush Administration inside job also. So maybe we aren't to far apart on some things. To me, it doesn't really matter what exactly hit the Pentagon. We know for certain that planes hit the twin towers. We know for certain that a plane did not hit World Trade Center 7. In order to get a new investigation of the whole 911 tragedy, we need to start in New York, not Washington.

"What you and I both are

"What you and I both are lacking is a professional report by the NTSB of the accident investigation. Is there one?"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

Try this

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr
And I expect an intelligent well thought out reply. Not a brush off or blah blah attack. This information was released under the OIA from a government body. If the hi-jackers could not get into the cock pit, how did they fly the plane?

I haven't and don't have time

I haven't and don't have time to check into this thoroughly right now, did quick search and found these things.
http://www.examiner.com/article/more-9-11-myths-cockpit-door...
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Cockpit_Door
http://www.airframes.org/911.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=...

When I have time I will look at this better and give you a more "intelligent thought out reply".

I am done answering

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.

OK, a different tact

according to information released by the NTSB the cockpit door on flight 77 was never opened during its flight.http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

Only took you one day to curl up.

Lets keep digging.

_____________________________________________

Watch this dry yet astonishing Dr. Robert Beck cancer treatment lecture on Google Video - search "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkiX0jJJozk

Check oiut this:

http://www.thepentacon.com/

There is a lot of information and eye witness testimony, many hours worth.

a missile hit it.

mike harrari planned it and bought the missile used.

it was more than likely a old soviet type reinforced missle capable of penetrating all of those reinforced pentagon walls.

1. NO ALUMINUM PLANE COULD PENETRATE THOSE REINFORCED WALLS IN THE MANNER THAT WAS DISPLAYED.

2. WHERE IS THE FOOTAGE FROM THE 83 PLUS CAMERAS OPERATEING IN THE AREA? OH YEAH NATIONAL SECURITY.

i dont know what those people thought they saw... either they are plants or their was some kind of trickery used to mimic a low flying plane.

thanks all

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

I can't take you seriously

You state you believe “the CIA or Mossad or both, infiltrated and assisted the hijackers.” If the hijackers were not competent enough to maneuver the high speeds and angles that occurred in both the tower attacks and the Pentagon attack which opinion has been corroborated by commercial pilots, what makes you think the CIA and/or Mossad would even trust the hijackers to do the job unless they (CIA/Mossad) had full control over the aircraft? Isn’t that the most important issue vs. whether a plane or missile hit the Pentagon? Everything is open to conjecture anyway until the tapes are
released for public viewing which is unlikely to occur at least in the immediate future. Your focus on evidence is all well and good, we all seek credible evidence; but you should know the CIA and Mossad will do everything they can to destroy, misuse and conjure up evidence as well as conflate the claims of what happened to mislead people to believe Islamic terrorists did 9/11. Your quest which seems to attempt to disprove sources truthers send you is thus suspicious to me because it appears quite one-sided (the same side the CIA and Mossad would support to backup the government’s story), and your focus does not align with your claim that you believe CIA and Mossad were involved. Your approach is thus a red herring and poses a red flag to me as a truther. Sorry if you are well intended, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but from where I see it, you are “barking up the wrong tree.”

Whether the plane or the

Whether the plane or the hijackers "could" have maneuvered the high speeds and angles is covered in my links. Veteran Pilot Phillip Marshall not only believes without a doubt that AA flt 77 flew into the Pentagon:
his resume
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/marshall-philip/55965
proof of his belief
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/09/08

He wrote a book on the training he says they received to do it
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror/dp/1468094580

This site has more about the planes ability and Hani Hanjour's flying experience
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

My approach stems from trying to have a civil discussion about the facts involved in other 9/11 threads, only to have the issues ignored and to be personally attacked time and time again. Click on my name here and look through my comment history if you need proof. So I wanted to try and pin people down to discussing the issue. I want to see what the best evidence there is to support their argument that no plane hit the Pentagon, I was not getting that in other threads I tried, I was only getting personally attacked. Look at all the personal attacks in this thread even after what I wrote in the post. Do you not think this had some people scouring the internet for evidence to shove in my face?

I have honestly assessed all the evidence presented to me. I cannot "disprove" something that was never proven to begin with. If there is some piece of evidence here you believe I have unfairly assessed, what is it? and what's wrong about it?

I am less impressed with your eyewitness focus

vs. following events from a point of logic.

I do not feel you adequately responded to the lack of evidence with respect to the missing tail section and wings of flight 77. There being “parts” is not convincing as those could have been planted.

You did not respond to the cab driver’s spilling the beans which I repost here:
Remember the cab driver whose cab was supposedly hit by a falling light pole? he has spilled the beans, the coward shill MrBungal won't touch this one, wonder why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvyQ0vVwjqc

I do not recall any adequate explanation about the lack of skid marks (such lack is highly implausible to me given the proximity to the ground of the supposed jet).

You did not adequately explain the “north of Citgo” flight path issue…reposting humanic’s “ This plane approached on a "north of Citgo" flight path which makes it impossible for it to have struck the five light poles or caused the directional damage to the building itself.

You too easily dismissed Jill Booth’s questions including the 2.3 trillion and the fact that the section that housed the accountants looking for the missing trillions was the very section destroyed along with the people. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Why was it such a limited point of destruction and why there?

I get that your thread is about evidence, but if you are going to convince anyone you are genuine seeker of truth, such issues need to be addressed over and above your eyewitness emphasis. If you were sitting on a jury, you are going to look at the entire picture. You state, “I've done the research, that's why I've issued this challenge. Because I know the only thing anyone can produce as evidence is opinions.” By your own words your intent seems to setup a “fail” from the standpoint of evidence. You state you want a civil discussion, but your attitude is generally condescending which invites the opposite of what you seek; and you discredit yourself by failing to adequately respond to others who have legitimate points.

I view Phillip Marshall’s case as tragic as I am sure he was on the side of truth. Yes his opinions are worth considering, but I am not always convinced by the so-called experts. Sometimes I find that the kernel of truth comes from the least expected places like the cab driver mentioned above.

"I do not feel you adequately

"I do not feel you adequately responded to the lack of evidence with respect to the missing tail section and wings of flight 77. There being “parts” is not convincing as those could have been planted."

While I can not say definitively where the tail section and wings are, I am going to guess they are mainly inside the building in little pieces like most of the rest of the plane. People keep acting and talking about this like it was a plane crash, it was not, it was a kamikaze attack. There's a big difference. In most plane crashes the pilot is trying to land as best he can and minimize damage. In a kamikaze attack the pilot is speeding up and trying to maximize damage. And they do not have to wonder what caused the plane to "crash", they know it was deliberately flown into a building.
If you can look through all those pictures and believe all those plane parts were planted, I'd like to know how they could do it, and just how many people you think were in on this. There were many people there, fireman, news reporters, policeman, etc., there is no evidence or witnesses to believe the parts were planted. And many things like this were there immediately and surely someone would have seen it get "planted" there.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JRoSNX6CDVA/UFQJ4wGpAjI/AAAAAAAAAE...

The cab driver thing is a joke and to me is embarrassing for those guys to even use. They get this guy and try to harass him over and over into saying he's in on it or somewhere other than he believes he was, and he still doesn't. I completely fail to see how the taxi driver "spills the beans", and find it funny actually that someone would resort in desperation to even try to say that he did.

No skid marks because it didn't skid, and there are videos of commercial jets flying very low and fast on the first link I have in my post of evidence to show it's possible.

"You did not adequately explain the “north of Citgo” flight path issue…reposting humanic’s “ This plane approached on a "north of Citgo" flight path which makes it impossible for it to have struck the five light poles or caused the directional damage to the building itself."
Well how can you say you are less than impressed with my eyewitness focus, when this whole entire theory is based on a handful of eyewitness testimony. Testimony of people who saw a plane flying toward the Pentagon. Testimony of only those who saw the plane but not the impact, they deliberately do not interview any of the many people who actually witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon. They provide no other evidence to support this theory, no eyewitnesses that saw the plane "continue on fly away", no evidence of planted plane parts, no evidence of where the plane continued on and flew away to. No other evidence whatsoever. So if you think my focus is on eyewitnesses (which I totally disagree with) and are less than impressed with that, you should easily not put any credit into that theory. The whole issue with eyewitness discrepancies to a plane flying 500 mph in the sky I have explained.

The deal with the 2.3 trillion dollars has nothing to do with whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, hence why I did not comment on it.

I disagree that my emphasis is on eyewitnesses. There is much more to my evidence than every eyewitness testimony. I don't deny that I did intend to set people up to fail, like I said I believe I have done the research and know what evidence is out there. But what better way to be sure than to challenge people who I know have researched this as well and disagree with my position to show me what evidence they have that has them convinced. To me that is pretty apt to bring out any evidence I am missing and not taking into consideration. And my attitude stems from the constant personal attacks when I try to discuss this issue, it gets aggravating. But still I've tried to stay as civil with those who are civil to me as I can.

If it was as smoky as April Gallop claims

anyone could have tampered with or planted parts. Wearing a uniform doesn’t guarantee that person legitimately represents the fire department or police department; if they are legitimate, that doesn’t guarantee they are acting in the best interest of an investigation. I posted on another recent thread how a 9/11 debunker falsely assumed OJ murdered Nicole Brown. I pointed out that post trial research by private investigator William Dear revealed how LAPD tampered with the evidence and omitted other key evidence so that any assumption of OJ’s guilt was faulty to begin with. (Dear concludes OJ’s son Jason committed the crime). This debunker then backpedaled out of saying OJ was guilty. The withholding of vital 9/11 videos is tantamount to hiding evidence and increases suspicion of an inside job and that they are deliberately hiding something. All it would take is one or two uniformed men to plant evidence in the Pentagon in a smoky cloud where no one could observe them.

The cab driver seemed pretty caught unaware and it didn’t seem like he was being harassed. I think it’s a matter of interpretation of his behavior.

My whole point about eyewitness testimony about the north approach was to say there is another story also backed by eyewitnesses. One must take the total picture into consideration along with a logical approach. If the north approach fits more logically with everything else, I am going to weigh that as a factor. I am still bothered by the lack of evidence of a tail section or wings, the configuration of the small size hole, lack of skid marks etc.; I will read your explanation re the latter.

While you may view the missing 2.3 trillion dollar as a separate issue from the plane/missile, no plane debate, that is just one more piece of the puzzle I think should be considered as it is an awfully strange coincidence which may or may not relate to the damaged section. I am viewing it from a top down approach (something you may have heard in Wall Street investing jargon); you conversely are taking a bottoms up approach. They are two different avenues with one not necessarily being better than the other but more suited to how we each prefer to find solutions and answers. That is why we don’t view this issue with the same pair of glasses. You will run into resistance from others who take the same approach as I do.

The constant personal attacks likely result from DPrs not knowing if they are dealing with trolls and government shills. It’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad ones. I think you would get less insults and better results as far as civil debate next time by seeking some kind of common ground despite the differing opinions. I think we have managed to have a civil discussion so I know it’s possible.

Just show me a real video.....

of a plane actually hitting that building.

So, if there is "proof" that flight 77

hit the pentagon....then what? Were does this "proof" take you? Al Qaeda? Mossad? CIA? That your government doesn't lie? What of it? Will it link to other "proof" about other planes?
Will that link to Who? Why?
Where are you going with this?

The magic book

This little piece of evidence is what sealed the deal for me to believe a plane never hit the pentagon. How does jet fuel supposedly melt/weaken steel and burn at 800 deg to take the towers down but a similar plane full of jet fuel does not even produce enough heat and flame to char a book on a stool?

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Stool_Sa...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

If opinions of professionals

If opinions of professionals do not matter then why do our courts allow expert witnesses? Do you have proof that it even happened? The government should have to prove that it happened first. Since they have refused to do so, any theory is valid.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Do you believe

9/11, in it's entirety, was an inside job? I'll hit you up with a reply after you answer that.

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

As I have said, I believe

As I have said, I believe that the CIA or Mossad or both, infiltrated and assisted the hijackers. If you look at the WTC bombing of 93, that group was infiltrated and aided, and they didn't really even want to do it. That's why they recorded the conversation with the infiltrator and was freaked out they were going to use a real bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7AtLD-oWqc

Also the OKC bombing, they were infiltrated and aided to get the materials they needed for that bombing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkvNKX5Jqik

And every one (to my knowledge) of the "terrorist groups" that have been "stopped" from doing something since 9/11 have been as a result of infiltration and provocation.

And I also highly suspect controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

Look at all the personal

Look at all the personal attacks in this thread, I told you what was going to happen.

There's a reason Ron Paul doesn't go personal when he's discussing something, because he doesn't need to, he can win a debate on this issues and personal attacks in no way help your case. Just the opposite. So keep proving me right people.

So far no evidence of even one eyewitness that saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon.
Not one bit of evidence of anything else found in the wreckage.
No eyewitnesses that saw anyone plant plane parts, or anyone involved in the cleanup or investigation that saw no plane parts, and one person who says they saw debris but none they could recognize as plane debris (Bob Pugh).
No videos of anything else hitting the Pentagon.
And no evidence of AA flt 77 ending anywhere else but the Pentagon.

Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...

As I already explained, you are purposely setting up a FALSE DILEMMA -- either AA77 impacted, or "something else" like a missile impacted -- both of which assume that SOMETHING impacted, when in reality as you well know there is only evidence for ONE flying object on the scene at the time of the explosion, a large plane, which did NOT hit. NOTHING "hit". So you misrepresent and handwave the overwhelming evidence for what really happened (flyover timed with internal explosion) and demand evidence for what didn't happen (missile impact). Nice try.

Quoting from the CIT site:

It is true that from “very early on” many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about “what hit”.

However, "what hit" is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building. The very question of "what hit" the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) "hit" at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years.

In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect "what hit" path. For example, we do not think that the alleged "leak" of the dubious five frames video was a real "leak" at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of "what hit". Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld's supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning "the missile" which "damaged this building" (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.

Ok so make this scenario,

Ok so make this scenario, nothing hitting the Pentagon only internal explosions, more plausible to me.

What is the evidence that supports internal explosions only?

Seems to me that most people do believe that something flew into the side of the Pentagon, especially from the wreckage, collapsed inward side and hole like something traveled through multiple walls. How is the wreckage consistent with only internal explosions?

Where did the plane all your witnesses saw go? Are we to go off of Roosevelt Roberts alone and assume the "second plane" he saw was the only plane, and all the 100 other eyewitnesses are mistaken about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon?

How did all the plane parts from an American Airlines plane get in the wreckage, the black box, or belongings and body parts of the passengers?

Maybe if you can answer those questions for me your story will seem more plausible.

It's explained in the documentary, mrbengal.

You know, the one you keep trying to pretend contains no "real" evidence. Your Jedi Mind tricks do not work here.

The plane continued on and flew away. It looked like a normal departure out of Reagan National Airport, which is literally one mile away from the Pentagon. There are constantly large, extremely low-flying jets landing and departing on the east side of the Pentagon. It is not an odd sight at all. See here, here, here, here, and here for examples. Again this is already shown and explained in the documentary so you are just playing games.

There were bodies and body parts found in the Pentagon but you have no proof that they were "the passengers" of Flight 77, which disappeared from radar hundreds of miles away about 45 min earlier and was never positively ID'ed again. Yet another tired old claim by you. Frequently Asked Question: Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

You know we are not "going off of Roosevelt Roberts alone", you know there was no other low flying plane in the area at the time of the explosion (alleged impact) even according to the official story, and you know 100+ people did not literally watch the plane impact the building.

The alleged "black box" data released by the government is a fraud. It shows the plane on a "south side" heading that is conclusively refuted by the eyewitnesses and also has it going 460 knots, which is 110 knots over the max operating velocity (Vmo) for a 757 at sea level. It also has the plane at an altitude that would require a 34G pull-up in order to hit the building low and level as required by the physical damage, which is laughable. This has been documented by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in detail. Your disinfo talking points are like 4 years old. You are failing miserably here.

Yeah sorry but that didn't

Yeah sorry but that didn't make it any more plausible.

No eyewitness say they saw it continue on and fly away, not a one. Roosevelt Roberts doesn't even, he did not see a plane until after he heard an explosion. All the eyewitnesses that saw what happened to the Pentagon say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, not continue on and fly away.

So sorry I can't buy that CIT crap. Who makes a complete case off of discrepancies in eyewitness testimony anyway? That's all they have, it's the crux of their whole case. No evidence of the plane going anywhere else. No eyewitnesses that saw the plane "continue on and fly away". No evidence of planted plane parts. No other evidence at all. You can blow off all the other evidence and buy that stuff if you'd like but I do not.

Pentacon

Pentacon.com had actually interviewed people living in the area and plotted out their eye witness accounts creating an absolutely different flight path than the official story making the hitting of light poles impossible.

estanislao

He knows. It's acutually ThePentaCon.com

He misrepresents the evidence and absurdly dismisses all of the north side approach witness accounts as mere "opinions" because he cannot refute them, and then disingenuously tries to steer the conversation into areas he is comfortable with. I already showed this earlier in this thread, but his MO it to just keep on repeating his same lines over and over like nothing happened with a phony authoritative tone and air of confidence.

As made clear in the video presentation National Security Alert, it is impossible for a plane on the north side -- let alone one in a significant right-hand bank as described by all witnesses who were in the best locations to observe the plane's flight path as it approached from over the Navy Annex -- to hit the light poles, hit the generator trailer, and/or to cause the required low and level directional damage to the building.

Hey mrbengal, PLEASE POST NAMES, SOURCED QUOTES, AND LINKS TO RECORDED INTERVIEWS OF SOUTH SIDE WITNESSES, i.e. witnesses who could see the gas station and judge the plane's location in relation to it, and insist it was on the south side, where it HAD TO BE.

As CIT has said: "If we were "cherry-picking" witnesses then the witnesses who 'erroneously' place the plane on the north side would be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who "correctly" place it on the south side. It would therefore be much easier to find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet, in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and our four initial north side witnesses... none of our detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports."

Where's your south side witnesses mrbengal? There should be LOTS if the plane hit the Pentagon as you claim. Post them. To quote you, "Only those insecure in their beliefs because of their inability to provide good evidence would be threatened by this."

Eyewitness testimony on

Eyewitness testimony on anything seen by multiple people have discrepancies. As I have used as an example, almost every NFL football game will have at least one play that can be video replayed several times and people will disagree on what happened in it. Even after watching video of it numerous times. Half say his foot was in bounds, half say it wasn't.

Add to that a position in the sky that is being looked at from different angles and different distances and travelling 500 mph, and you are going to get some variance in exact flight paths people believe they saw.

The facts that are the same from everyone of those people in CIT doc, is that everyone of them saw a plane, and they all saw it coming from the same general direction.

If that was all the eyewitnesses there were, it might make me question more, but they are not. There are many, many eyewitnesses that saw they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. And none that saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon.
Like these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cT8WWt61eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue6PniAv0r8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbhbXMfh6eQ

I mean do you honestly believe all these people and more, most of which are not affiliated with gov't, are lying or in on it?

9-12 - felonious destructino of a crime scene. Prove me wrong.

Truth is, none of us know WTF happened on 9-1, THE CRIME SCENE WAS DESTROYED.
That is a felony, and our government was clearly involved in it.
Any more divide and conquer BS questions?

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

sharkhearted's picture

And notice he skirted around the question, as usual.

Don't waste your time with him fishy. He is brainwashed or a government paid actor or both...so it is useless trying to reason with someone who is not in control of his own mind.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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