-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.

I have said already that Bob

I have said already that Bob Pugh is the best evidence anyone has provided so far on this thread. He says he saw debris, but none he could make out to be plane debris. I have not looked for any other interviews of his or anything yet, but I plan to.
I would like to see an interview, or interview him myself, to see how close he got to the building, and how he missed things like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JRoSNX6CDVA/UFQJ4wGpAjI/AAAAAAAAAE...

But yeah so far I concede him to be your best piece of evidence. One guy saying he saw debris but none he could make out to be plane debris is completely dwarfed by all the other evidence to the contrary, but hey it's something.

the fact that none of the many confiscated vids are released

is proof that the government is hiding something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSaCFoWKjE

here is an eye witness video.

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

Mrbengal

Works for the government, if you didn't already figure that out.

sharkhearted's picture

I figured he might be a paid actor...but wasn't sure.

Must be nice to get paid WITH TAXPAYER MONEY to sit in ones underwear in ones home professionally spewing out misinformation and in some cases disinformation on the web to try and break up truth movements.

Well guess what Bengal: It AIN'T WORKING!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

same diff

anyway... he's pretty easy to fool.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer II to Question Number 4

YOU SAID: "Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Real video of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon."

I have no idea the veracity of this video, but it does give one pause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

sharkhearted's picture

Answer to Question number 4

You said: "Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Real video of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon."

THAT'S EASY. THERE IS NO VIDEO OF A PLANE OR ANYTHING ELSE HITTING THE PENTAGON. NOW THOSE MAY EXIST, BUT THE FBI HAS KEPT IN CONFISCATION TO THIS DAY ANY AND ALL SECURITY CAMERA VIDEOS AIMED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PENTAGON THAT DAY.

HMMM...WONDER WHY THEY REFUSE TO RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC??

WHAT POSSIBLE NATIONAL SECURITY DANGER TO THE PUBLIC OR THE NATION COULD IT BE TO RELEASE THE VIDEOS OF THE CAMERAS AIMED AT THE PENTAGON ON SEPT 11, 2001, NOW ALMOST 12 YEARS LATER??

The silence is deafening.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

No there is video, you may

No there is video, you may not be able to make out what hits the Pentagon in the videos available but you can make out that something hit the Pentagon.

Look below, I already replied on this and I gotta go to bed.

sharkhearted's picture

YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY COUNTER-QUESTION

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TO RELEASE ALL THE VIDEO CAMERAS THEY CONFISCATED THAT HAD THE PENTAGON IN VIEW?

IF THE INVESTIGATION IS "OVER", THEN WHAT POSSIBLE NATIONAL SECURITY HARM COULD IT DO BY WITHHOLDING THOSE VIDEOS FROM THE PUBLIC??

AND IF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT IS TRUE (THAT A BOEING 757 HIT THE PENTAGON), THEN WHY WOULDN'T THE FBI WANT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT BY RELEASING VIDEOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS??

Again, the silence is deafening.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

my guess is, because it's the

my guess is, because it's the Pentagon. they dont want the images being used in propaganda. that's what i think their motives are.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer 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.

From The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by David Ray Griffith, pp. 100-101

"April Gallop, who was a US Army Security executive assistant with a top security clearance, had just returned to work on the morning of Sept 11 after two-month maternity leave. As soon as Gallup pushed the button to start her computer, she heard a 'huge boom', which 'sounded like a bomb.'...As she regained consciousness, and found her son, she picked him up, and with some help from others, got outside. Although she went out the so-called impact hole, she found no evidence that a plane had hit the Pentagon. [She said}: 'I had no jet fuel on me...I DIDNT SEE ANY AIRPLANE SEATS....I DIDNT SEE ANY PLANE PARTS...I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD GIVE ME AN IDEA THAT THERE WAS A PLANE...I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ON THE LAWN...I DIDN'T SEE LUGGAGE, METAL PIECES.'

Later, knowing that she had had a traumatic experience, including injury to the head, Ms. Gallop checked with other people who had been there, but [she said] 'they did not see anything of this nature as well.' Indeed, she added: 'I HAVE NOT TALKED TO ANYONE YET WHO SAID THAT [THEY SAW EVIDENCE OF A PLANE.' "

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

This is my answer to April

This is my answer to April Gallop, copied and pasted as I have already addressed this. But don't worry I am going to list the best real evidence that people have produced and she is near the top.

April Gallop who says she saw no plane parts but sued American Airlines.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/9-11_survivor_who_cla...

She also said she was in shock, it was very smoky, and she wasn't looking around for evidence. It was sooo smoky in fact that she could not even see her child on the floor at her feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPVl6gwk1EM
I don't think it makes a difference either way, but I have a hard time believing her since she says she came out the hole. Why would you walk towards the explosion and fire and not the other way to get out? I mean show me where you think she walked out in these pictures:

http://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DM-...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MGRMdnZJk-Y/UFQEdBJzaoI/AAAAAAAAAD...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JRoSNX6CDVA/UFQJ4wGpAjI/AAAAAAAAAE...

Because she also says nothing was on fire, looks to me like she would have had to walk through fire or be sprayed by the firehoses putting out the fires.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer III to Question number 1

YOU SAID: Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

From The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by David Ray Griffith, p. 106

"Second hand testimony in support of this view has come from David E. Edwards, professor of anthropology at Salisbury University in Maryland. He has written that on the morning of 9/11 he was going to Capitol Hill for a 10 AM meeting. Just after he transferred to an Orange Line subway car at L'Enfant Station, a young couple burst in and started shouting: 'We saw a missile fly into the Pentagon. We saw it! We saw it!' Then they kept repeating their claim (saying things such as: 'A missile, we saw it, a missile, it flew right into the Pentagon. Now it's on fire, there's smoke!'), Edwards reported, until he got off the train at Capitol South Station."

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

WOW, he heard someone who

WOW, he heard someone who said they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. That is lock solid hard evidence, case closed.

But you'll have to debate humanic now, because he doesn't believe a missile hit the Pentagon either.

sharkhearted's picture

NO...CASE OPEN

YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING CASE CLOSED, NOT ME.

I , LIKE TENS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD, WANT A NEW INDEPENDENT NON-GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EVENTS OF 9-11.

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

FOR ME...ITS CASE OPEN

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

This was posted a few days ago-you can stop listening @11:35

http://www.dailypaul.com/280069/major-general-ret-albert-stu...

Would you agree that this man is credible? That he was privileged to SEE many things the public is not allowed to see? Does he seem like a senile conspiracy theorist, or would you agree that he is knowledgeable as well as logical?

Many like to criticize the truth-seekers for "trying" to find truths that simply aren't there. Yet when confronted with facts, many of these same people should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they aren't the ones that are "trying" to reject the truth.

Sure he's a credible source

Sure he's a credible source for an opinion. But he's also a former intelligence agent himself and suspected disinfo agent.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

I am only giving anyone who believes AA flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon a chance to show me their best evidence to compare it with the evidence that AA flt 77 did hit the Pentagon. No one has shown anything I haven't seen yet, and no one has produced any of the evidence requested and said to exist yet either. I am a truth seeker as well, I want all the facts, I don't want to just go off of opinions no matter how credible the person is giving the opinion.

I understand your point. and I can't blame you

but, that's also like letting the murderer off because he cleaned up the crime scene and eliminated the witnesses.

Let me get this straight. We've agreed he's credible, yet you claim "opinion"? He stated he "physically" took measurements, he "physically" saw what can "ONLY" be described as part of a missile, and "physically saw" the unaltered video. So, here's a credible, experienced man claiming this, yet your argument is that it's an "opinion" of a possible disinfo agent? Correct?

If he's a disinfo agent, shouldn't he be working the other side of things? What possible gains do you think the agent stands to gain from this? I'd venture to say he has more to lose than possible gains no? Why has no one come out to discredit him?

Well why does he say in this

Well why does he say in this video that he does not know what hit the Pentagon and say that he examined photographs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7ye1vfgbT0

He never says anything about suspecting a missile, seeing a missile part, "physically" inspecting anything, or seeing any unaltered video.
In fact he says he has been very careful of not saying what hit the Pentagon because the evidence is not there, if he saw an unaltered video of what hit and saw a missile part, why does he not offer that up in this interview?

Also you do know that the CIT story, that many people are pointing me to here, does NOT believe a missile hit the Pentagon right? And NONE of the over 100 eyewitness saw a missile hit the Pentagon or a plane shoot a missile that hit the Pentagon, NONE.

So yeah I got problems with that and therefor can consider it only his opinion of the wreckage from photographs, because that's all it is.

Okay, either you up-voted your own comment, or someone else

here didn't hear correctly as well. @1:40 he states, and I quote, "It was NOT an airplane". He also never mentions anything about suspecting a kite, or a mosquito, correct? Now you may be thinking why I am being ridiculous by mentioning a kite or a mosquito as we both well know neither of those could make that hole. So what could? An airplane? A missile? What else could possibly be left, a meteor? Realistically, logically, and maturely, it would be either an airplane or a missile.

I'll add something else; He did "NOT" say that the "EVIDENCE" wasn't there. He said that he could not "PROVE" it. You strike my as an intelligent person so I will assume that I don't have to explain that there is a very BIG difference between those statements.

From the video I originally provided, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xzsbSbVUE&feature=youtu.be @9:25 of this video, he once again states that it was NOT an airplane, and also goes on to say that the part inside the hole looked, "NOT" like an airplane turbine, but that it looked like a missile turbine.

From your comments, it's suddenly dawning on me that maybe you didn't watch the original video I posted and instead, you assumed that the video you posted was the same one as the one I had provided. If that is indeed the case, I encourage you to watch the version I've included in this comment as it contradicts most of your statements.

As for witnesses, I'm sorry but I have a strong bias against witnesses whenever they support the government's version of the story. Reason being, is that whenever there are witnesses that contradict the governments version, they "accidentally" suffer an early death or they mysteriously disappear and are never heard from again. For some very odd reason, there always seems to be a fatal epidemic of eyewitnesses whenever they contradict the government's version of things. They could also be disinfo agents, you said so yourself.

"I'll add something else; He

"I'll add something else; He did "NOT" say that the "EVIDENCE" wasn't there. He said that he could not "PROVE" it. You strike my as an intelligent person so I will assume that I don't have to explain that there is a very BIG difference between those statements."

at 3:16 of this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7ye1vfgbT0
"Now I have been very careful to not say what went in there, why, because I don't have that evidence."

He does say after looking at photographs he doesn't think it was an airplane. But nothing about physical inspection, nothing about missile, talking solely about his judgement from photographs. I'll give you it's an opinion from a credible person made from the photographs he was given. But opinions are a dime a dozen, and there are credible opinions that say just the opposite as well, not to mention all the other evidence.

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?"
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm

I'm so glad you brought Allyn up - what are your conclusions

from this article?
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april072006/757_bytim2_32...

What about this article that exposes Allyn in a lie?:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol...

"Of course, the idea that we should give any credit to the words of someone who was immediately called by the Pentagon to come and "assess the damage" and who went on to make millions from the reconstruction project is laughable. Kilsheimer was also the "government's man" at the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing and the first WTC bombing. Coincidence?" -Also taken from the last article

"Credible Opinions":
So we have Stubblebine, a former 2 star General whose "actual job" it was to take measurements based on photographs, an expert if you will, and was the head of Intel/Psyops, who has been careful not to say anything that he can not prove, and which stands nothing to gain by doing so vs Allyn, who has been discredited as a liar, and as someone who profited to the tune of millions.

"But nothing about physical inspection, nothing about missile, talking solely about his judgement from photographs."

For the third and final time, I will refer to you to the video that I originally provided where he contradicts your statements about measurements and "proving", NOT think, but "prove" that it was NOT an airplane. He CAN PROVE it, but he does not have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (only the government does correct?). It's obvious from your continued statements that you have either not watched it, or not understood that part. The video you keep providing is 5 minutes long, where as the one I keep referring to is just under 20 minutes.

You keep bringing up "evidence" over and over again. You do realize that ANY and ALL physical evidence and video was supposed to be turned over as part of the criminal investigation, do you not? What do you think would happen if someone stated they had actual "physical evidence"? Do you think the government would just let that slide and not pursue criminal charges? What's happened to the eye witnesses that have so far contradicted the government? One way or another, they've all been silenced permanently. The only reason Bradley Manning is alive is because the evidence had already gone viral.

If you're asking someone to provide evidence against the mafia, which owns the justice system, and its enforcers, you're not going to get far, for if the evidence actually exists, it's most likely been destroyed and witnesses silenced. Having said that, without evidence, it can be proven scientifically/mathematically.

Here's a separate video you may like, in case you haven't seen it before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beIbbnt9LHk

sharkhearted's picture

Answer II to Question number 1

YOU SAID: Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

From The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by David Ray Griffith, p. 105

Quoted from Lon Rains, editor of SPACE NEWS, as he was headed north on 395:

" 'The Traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon..[which was]...to the left of my van....At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.' "

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

"YOU SAID: Real evidence

"YOU SAID: Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon."

This is an ear witness not eyewitness. And guess what, the plane WAS a missile, that's exactly what a kamikaze attack is. Using a plane as a missile.

sharkhearted's picture

Answer to question number 1

YOU SAID: Real evidence would include but not necessarily be limited to:
Eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon.

From The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, by David Ray Griffith, p. 75

"...Scott Cook and his boss, Ray, who were in the conference room at the Portals building in Washington, which had a wide window looking directly at the Pentagon, with Reagan Airport to the left. Having learned about the attacks in NYC and thinking that DC might be attacked next, they kept their eyes on the landscape as well as the TV set. Suddenly they saw that the Pentagon had been struck. Cook later wrote:

'We didn't know what kind of plane hit the Pentagon... Later, we were told it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in the back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument. up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop leval and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I CANNOT FATHOM WHY NEITHER MYSELF NOR RAY, A FORMER AIR FORCE OFFICER, MISSED A BIG 757, GOING 400 MILES PER HOUR, AS IT CROSSED IN FRONT OF OUR WINDOW IN ITS LAST 10 SECONDS OF FLIGHT.' "

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

So not an eyewitness that saw

So not an eyewitness that saw something other than a plane hit the Pentagon, but someone who can't understand why they were not an eyewitness? Well damn, case closed I guess.

sharkhearted's picture

NO....CASE OPEN

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY A NEW INDEPENDENT NON-GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON THE EVENTS OF 9-11.

TOO MANY CONTRADICTORY REPORTS FROM THE OFFICIAL STORY.

EYEWITNESS PENTAGON POLICE AT THE CITGO STATION BETTING THEIR LIFE ON THE PATH OF THE PLANE (AND WHICH CONTRADICTS THE OFFICIAL NTSB PATH OF FLIGHT 77!)

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

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

I have seen a magician

pull a fluffy white rabbit out of an empty top hat, along with all the other people in the audience.
I have watched David Copperfield disappear the Statue of Liberty, in front of a live audience.It's all true, watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEw-gtDkO4.
Eye witness accounts are unreliable at best, and down right wrong at worst.
Those stupid "released Video" footage prove nothing, other than that the Pentagon is hiding something.

New angle, same conspiracy.

I looked at the videos of eyewitnesses here and they are no different than any other eyewitness from the truther movies. Bottom line both sides should be demanding a new investigation, independently ran, and by people the American people trust so one side could look at the other and say "I told you so". The anti truthers are as passionate about their conspiracy as the truthers, yet both are conspiracy theorists as no one can know until the video's are released unmolested, and examined by multiple entities, and a proper and true investigation takes place.

I look at the proof positive photos provided and do not see anything but a garbage can sized piece of painted metal. In the truther video I did not see a definitive video showing the plane from multiple angles and the impact. Nothing on either side would prove anything to me were it the first I had looked at any of the evidence. How about the two sides stop bickering long enough to demand a real investigation? Perhaps the confusion in the matter is so that you argue instead of get to and demand the facts be released.

I am no truther or non truther and enjoy both sides of the story, yet neither side holds one ounce of proof positive.
*Jim Farmer states that testimony from U.S. officials were lies, about time lines and what really occurred, which at the very least shows they were/are hiding something. This is all available to the public from the documented times, to the video testimony going against these timelines, this is indeed fact.
*The FBI knew a Saudi cleric purchased 12 tickets and did nothing, nor have they acted against him/them, and more importantly bits of truth slip out at times and damage control is easy to spot which is now also fact:
http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/ex-senators-say-saudi-go...

So I have a challenge to both sides to convince someone who is neutral, but requires proof and not rhetoric. The evidence is out there, it is being suppressed, but until someone brings this forward I cannot believe either side. One thing is sure, if the U.S. government did not complete the investigation into Saudi involvement, then there was no investigation at all, period. The talking heads state that "We just don't want to know", but if one were honest with ones self it is obvious that we do not want to know because the Saudi government is our puppet, and our governments masters did not want an investigation for fear of something other than oil, since we protect Saudi Arabia militarily and could take it over at a whim, so what else could they be hiding? I would guess the U.S. players involved whether the CIA, a rouge official or military leader, or perhaps a supposed ally, I can only speculate, but I implore everyone to never stop asking the questions until we know the full truth.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Oh boy, more 9/11 misdirection by mrbengal...

You show up in every 9/11 thread purposely trying to confuse people on the issue, and here you are yet again in a thread of your own. You already posted a link to National Security Alert, the video containing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1) There was a large plane on the scene.
2) 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. The two are mutually exclusive.
3) The plane could not have and did not strike the building and was even seen flying away by numerous eyewitnesses including Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

You attempt to discredit this video by claiming that 100% of the evidence in it is "opinion", apparently referring to the detailed, on camera interviews with well-placed eyewitnesses. Dismissing these as mere "opinion" and not "real evidence" is absurd. Eyewitness accounts are used in court to put people behind bars every day. They are not infallible in and of themselves, but they are important pieces of evidence (not mere "opinion"), especially when they corroborate each other and are used in conjunction with other types of evidence. That is exactly what is done in that documentary to show that the Pentagon event was a false flag, and it certainly does constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As explained on the official website and in the video itself:

...it would be very difficult for any one of these witnesses to get the location of the plane in relation to the Navy Annex and/or gas station wrong given their vantage points, especially the witnesses who were actually on the station property, who were in the best location out of the entire witness pool to judge which side the plane flew on with accuracy. The notion that they are all simultaneously incorrect about this general detail in the same way is not even remotely conceivable. And again, some of them are on record just weeks after the event placing the plane in the same location.

And before you try to say that they all corroborate each other about the impact too:

...the north side approach and impact are mutually exclusive claims. All of them being independently mistaken about the north side approach given their various excellent vantage points would require simultaneous matching hallucinations. All of them being deceived about the plane hitting the building would require deliberate deception [on the part of the same perpetrators who deliberately deceived people around the world into thinking that the towers weren't being blown up before their very eyes]

Furthermore, your claim that the witnesses all "SAW THE PLANE hit the Pentagon" is yet another misleading statement by you. From the same link:

...while they each had an excellent view of the plane as it passed by them at treetop level,many of the witnesses in question did not have a clear view of the impact point, or in some cases any view of the Pentagon at all, and/or they admit to running, flinching, or ducking for cover. This is explained and documented very clearly in National Security Alert.

For example:

"No one was really trying to look see if it actually was gonna hit the building or not hit the building. So everyone was running in the opposite direction for their lives"
- Darius Prather, ANC maintence worker

We sent our DVD The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks, and they stuck by the north side flight path, even AFTER being made aware of the implications. Sgt. Brooks called our video an "eye-opener", and admitted that "anything is possible" in terms of him being fooled about the impact. (This too is explained in National Security Alert). We also sent Arlington National Cemetary worker and eyewitness Darrell Stafford copies of The North Side Flyover and National Security Alert, and we know from a recent CNN piece that Mr. Stafford is sticking to the north side approach as well, which is not surprising because he is on record saying the same thing since 2001 and is corroborated by the witnesses in the absolute best locations to confirm or refute this detail out of the entire witness pool, proving that 9/11 was an inside job.

I guess you just "missed" all that.

You then demand "real" evidence such as "eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon", photos of a "piece or part of a missile or anything else", and video of "something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon." First of all, I thought eyewitnesses could only provide "opinion"? More importantly, you are setting up a FALSE DILEMMA -- either AA77 impacted or "something else" impacted -- which assumes that SOMETHING impacted, when in reality as you well know there is only evidence for ONE flying object on the scene, 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.