-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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You too fishy? What a

You too fishy? What a shame.

Please tell me what is wrong with asking for the evidence to support your beliefs? I have no problem with providing the evidence to support my belief and discussing it with others, why do you and others?

To me it can only be out of insecurity in your belief, and that should tell you something.

It was on every media outlet for months.

Go youtube "9-11 clean up" and you can still watch the criminals at work. Yes, that guy in the bulldozer? Criminal. I don't think he needs prosecuted, I think he needs asked who paid him to do it. THEY need prosecuted.
And why do you presume to tell me what I believe? I clearly stated I don't know what happened on 9-1, and you don't either. The crime scene was destroyed. leaving us both to guess. However, rather than fight about what you and I will NEVER KNOW, we can concetrate on what we DO know. 9-12, felony, on video.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I searched that on youtube

I searched that on youtube and could not find a video that shows the Pentagon clean up. Don't you have a link?

I believe I do know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. You can keep the belief that you don't know what happened, that's your right and I have no problem with that.

I've stated this over and over again but here it goes again just for you.
Every single eyewitness that saw what happened say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. More than one hundred people. There are more people who saw the plane headed toward the Pentagon, but did not actually see it hit the Pentagon. No eyewitnesses say they saw anything else other than a plane hit the Pentagon. Twenty six people said specifically it was an American Airlines jet they saw. No eyewitnesses say the plane flew over the Pentagon and did not hit it. American Airlines plane parts were found all over the scene and especially in the wreckage. The black box from American Airlines flt 77 was recovered in the Pentagon wreckage. Body parts recovered in the wreckage was identified by dna to be from passengers that were on AA flt 77. Radar tracking from 4 different sources followed AA flt 77 up until it ended at the Pentagon. The Flight Data recorder analysis also confirms AA flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

May not be enough for you, but it is for me, especially considering the complete lack of evidence for any other scenario.

No, I'm not playing your silly game.

I am not the least bit concerned with proving there was or was not a plane. That is beyond my ability, or yours. Do you deny the Pentagon was cleaned up? Have you NEVER seen the images of people walking around picking up debris? THAT WAS A CRIME. I seek common ground. You win about 9-11, I can not prove anything about that day. But 9-12 is another day, and another crime. If there is no footage of the clean up that went on for months BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION then someone has been busy scrubbing the intertubes. That does not change the fact that we all watched it in real time, and the video does exist.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive ...

... is a basic fundamental of logic. And the person asserting the positive is you, mrbengal, when you make the claim that "American Airlines flt 77 [was flown] into the Pentagon in a kamikaze attack by hijackers."

You are asserting a positive statement. The burden of proof is on you.

Fundamental logic. If you do not understand logic, then you cannot claim that others are not giving logical answers.

You are the prosecutor, not the defendant. You have the burden of proof.

And you have no proof.

That is a problem

I have provided my evidence,

I have provided my evidence, my links are all over to my evidence.

Where's yours? That's all I'm asking for? If you believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, you had to come to that belief from some evidence, right? I am asking for that evidence. Only those insecure in their beliefs because of their inability to provide good evidence would be threatened by this.

Yeah that video looks real

Yeah that video looks real legit, super clear high definition as well.

And are you switching to a missile hit the Pentagon now? Because the CIT video you have linked to a thousand times maintains that neither a plane nor missile hit the Pentagon. Woops... So which is it?

He gave you exactly

what you asked for and you just dismiss it. The guy at 5:11, a reporter, even said "it looked like a missile with wings."

Bengal, what do you hope to accomplish by telling people here at the DP your opinion of what happened on 9/11?

It's obvious that you won't agree with any footage or science that we present to you, so what's the next step? Just agree to disagree or what?

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

Where's that video from? Can

Where's that video from? Can you answer me that? Do you really contend you see a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon in that video? Because I don't.

The reporter at 5:11 does say that the plane "looked like a missile with wings". That's what it was, a plane used as a missile. Have you heard that reporters whole statement? Not just the edited piece so many documentaries use. It is in one of the videos of the first link I provided, check it out.

If I am provided with legitimate footage or science I will take it into consideration, but I have not seen any. I do not call that video legitimate footage, I don't know who took that footage, where it came from, and I don't see a cruise missile in it anyway.

The challenge is asking for evidenece

that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01. I believe that this is just that.

One glaring piece of evidence

that whatever hit the pentagon was in fact allowed to hit the pentagon is the FACT that the pentagon was equipped with Anti-Aircraft Missles that could have easily shot or attempted to shoot whatever flew into it.

I actually remember watching a special(abc nighline or something) back in 1999 during the Kosovo war where a general gave a tour of the pentagon to the journalist. In it, they described the new renovations that were taking place but more importantly they went on to discuss how the building is equipped with anti-aircraft missles.

This fact that this fact is ignored is plenty enough for any person to reasonablly conclude an inside job.

Fair enough to suspect those

Fair enough to suspect those in charge let the plane hit the Pentagon. Doesn't in anyway refute that the plane hit the Pentagon though.

SteveMT's picture

Time stamp 9/11 Pentagon video: September 12, 2001, 17:37:19

Not only is the date incorrect, so is the time of day, 5:17 pm and 37 seconds. Both pictures before and after the explosion have the exact same time stamp, so they must have occurred within the same second on two different frames. Yet, the plane going through the frame and hitting the Pentagon was missed within that second. I suppose that's possible, but what a thing to miss at that instant. These two times should not be exactly the same, yet miss the plane. So, not only are the dates incorrect, but the times should be different.
Other picture anomalies:
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/pentag...

If you look at the video

If you look at the video those stills are taken from on my links, there is no timestamp at the bottom. So I'm not even sure where those timestamps came from and your source doesn't link to their source for the timestamp.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer II to Question Number 3

Are you going to continue to downvote the truth, Bengal, you taxpayer-funded government shill?

You challenged with questions and I gave you valid answers. And so I am reposting this one here:

But, after this, unlike you, who apparently is on the government disinfo dole, I have a REAL job to get to.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM&feature=player_em...

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

A Must See

A must see video.

Evidence this, evidence that?

"Provide ANY real evidence to support that claim."

A person doesn't have to provide evidence "that American Airlines flt 77 was not flown into the Pentagon in a kamikaze attack by hijackers". A person questioning how the event took place is of a "defensive nature", not an "offensive nature" and doesn't have to prove evidence, only the lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence: "where is the damn plane"? Any part of it? Yes, some remains "of something was found" and shown on the t.v., were these remains examined for validity that they did indeed come from the flight mentioned above? If so, who did the examination(s) and under what circumstances? Was the examination(s) done by more than one source? Report(s)? And, where are the report(s) now if they exist?

Lack of evidence: Where is the evidence of the airlines that indeed a plane\jet was hijacked and validated by the airlines of the remains, that it was of their flight? Where is this report now? How does it read?

Lack of evidence: any seat remains? Were these remains examined for validity that they did indeed come from the flight mentioned above?

Lack of evidence: of any size recordable; passenger luggage, clothing of course, etc. And, can these remains be linked to actual passengers?

Lack of evidence: paper of any sort? Any report of what was written on any of the paper remains to help in the validation? And, can these remains be linked to actual passengers? If so, where are they now?

Lack of evidence: any body parts, bones, fragments found and examined? If so, linked to passengers?

Lack of evidence: Any DNA test of blood of any miniscule particles present? And, can be licked to any passenger of the flight? If so, where are they now?

Lack of evidence: And, any miscellaneous plane\jet parts found and examined and by whom? And, where are they?

Lack of evidence: Witness accounts?

So have you not looked

So have you not looked through my links?

There is evidence for almost everything you are asking for evidence for, in the links I have provided. Many pictures of plane parts (many identifiable as American Airlines), many eyewitness accounts video/ audio/written to the plane hitting the Pentagon and that seen the plane parts (including the recovery of the black box to AA flt 77), documentation on dna identification of passengers and some passenger belongings that were found, passenger manifest list with video of Hani Hanjour walking on to the ramp to the plane. I cannot hold your hand and make you look through them, but they're there.
this link alone has much of that
http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

Where 'o Where

Are the skid marks?

edit: left a hole at ground level and no skid marks? Such precision with a airliner traveling at how many miles hour reported with a inexperienced pilot?

Lack of evidence: that the airliner came in at an angle. The hole represents something else.

Lack of evidence: have the poles that were supposedly struck by the airliner been examined to prove\document that the said airliner actually hit them? Where are the poles now?

sharkhearted's picture

Excellent comments

"Where's the damn plane?" etc.

LOVE IT.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

Thanks, appreciate it

Maybe some other things can be filled in, like: the tape confiscations.

Folks I know about April

Folks I know about April Gallop. If you look in the comments section here I have commented on April Gallop. I have posted an interview where she says it was so smokey in the building she could not see her child on the floor at her feet. How is she to see plane parts or anything else if it is so smokey that she cannot see her child at her feet? She also says she was in complete shock(didn't even remember her child was there with her)walking around in the dark trying to find a way out.

Plane crash cahllenge, fucko

We challenge you to find any interview anywhere, of anyone, who walks out of the hole in a building where a plane crashed into it who doesn't know FOR SURE that a plane hit the damn thing. Seats luggage, bodies, not DNA, not plane debris scattered in the wrong place, real evidence anywhere in history.

ready??? GO!!!

Pilots for 9/11 truth:

9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405

AND (this is very well done):

NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approach-Impact-Analysis....

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Is their any evidence to the

Is their any evidence to the claim that the flight deck door was never opened? Because the link provided just makes the claim, it has no source for the claim.

And the second link is CIT and I have covered that multiple times.

AGAIN, you haven't "covered" CIT mrbengal

You've thrown the link to the documentary out preemptivey in the OP and then attempted to misrepresent and quickly handwave it. When I pointed this out, as well as your other distortions and the way you were/are setting up a false dilemma, you then repeatedly and blatantly attempted to backpedal and misrepresent MY clearly stated position in order to confuse readers, as you usually do.

The plane was on the north side of the gas station in the final seconds before the alleged impact. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for it "to hit the light poles, hit the generator trailer, and/or to cause the required low and level directional damage to the building, as the link joeneesima posted demonstrates, and as is further demonstarted here.

Do you concede that the plane was on the north side of the station, as the witnesses in the best locations to answer this question all independently insist it was? Or did they all have "simultaneous matching hallucinations"?

April Gallup, a pentagon employee, says she exited the

building through the damaged area - she saw no plane parts, no bodies, no luggage. The government and courts have done everything they can to shut her up.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

sharkhearted's picture

Answer II to Question 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM&feature=player_em...

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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