Re: Pentagon Flight 77 on 9/11/01 Where did all the people/plane/wreckage go?


"Rogues Island's finest" <mthitch@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144267225.587797.242460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

effty wrote:
"Bzl." <bzlrbi@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49i6tcFoq8dbU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"seraphim" <seraphim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KRPYf.4934$kg.4166@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"effty" <gospameffty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rAHYf.13531$zk4.9644@xxxxxxxxxxx

"seraphim" <seraphim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MlHYf.6176$tT.506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


2.the plane that crashed was a small 8 passenger plane not a full
747
the movie shows large 747 in comparison so it is misleading

You are saying American Airlines flight 77, the one that supposedly
hit
the pentagon, was an 8 passenger plane?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

Are you serious?

~e.


but I do remember that they had said it was travelling full speed upon
impact and that was the reason there was so little remaining ......I
must
have seen something I saw on a different website my error


I saw the huge hole in the Pentagon, with all the flames, that
afternoon.
I also heard and felt the crash as my house shook a mile away. I find
it
very disturbing that some would try to raise doubts about what happened
(not you, Seraphim).

Those USA Today biographies are really touching, btw.

The huge hole in the pentagon occured some time after the explosion.
Fire
brought down part of the outer ring. The original pictures show a small
hole, with intact windows above, and to either side of the hole.

Someone sent me those pictures, the now famous French site, and that
flash
animation that we're discussing a few years ago. That's actually what
caused me to get into the whole 9/11 truth thing.

The lawn is completely green. IMO, it can't have been a 757, as the
official story states. In later pictures, you see some wreckage
scattered
on the lawn.

http://radified.com/911/911_pentagon.htm
Shows my favorite ever picture of the event. It's very soon after the
event. The building is burning, but the wall has not yet collapsed. The
lawn is very green, and spotless in terms of debris. You can see a
blackened hemisphere on the intact pentagon wall. I really just don't
see a
plane in that picture ...anywhere.

Rumsfeld at one point misspoke and called it a missile that hit the
pentagon. I think they did a criss-cross. A plane landed very, very low
going in one direction. Then a missile hit the building.

I don't mean to be stubborn about the issue, but it really doesn't look
like
any passenger plane crash I've ever seen. Then you have the double
whammy
of the thing (whatever it was) hitting the most heavily protected
building
on Earth.

After I saw those pictures I stared looking into everything I could find
on
9/11; official and otherwise. Now I have no doubt that it was an episode
of
false-flag terrorism. It's been done before. These people had the
means,
the motive, and the opportunity. They set up the same-day training
excercises that confused everyone. They've profited immensely from our
war
on an abstract idea. They've shoveled legislation and pork projects
through
without question.

It makes a whole heck of a lot more sense than the official story.
Something hit the pentagon, but it wasn't a 757.

I'm tired of people attacking *me* when I write stuff like this, so if
that's your reaction feel free to save it. If you actually want to
discuss
it, I would love to do that! I'm just interested in figuring out the
truth,
and anything of substance is appreciated in that regard.

You seem like a nice, otherwise reasonable dude, so please don't take
this personally.

You say that you want the truth, yet you refuse to believe a multitude
of eye witnesses, or the fate of those poor people on the 757 (where
are they, Lost?), or the many, many people who have explained how the
building was damaged by the plane in the way it was, yet you base your
argument on a picture of grass which didn't burn in a way that meets
your approval?

You refuse to believe the truth and attempt to put the burden of proof
on reasonable people to disprove your ludicrous theories or suspicions.


The truth is right in front of your face, and 99% of the people who
refuse to see that are more interested in a political agenda than
finding the truth.

Mark


I understand what you are saying. I really do.

I got into this whole thing very begrudgingly. Like, the more and more I
thought about it, the more and more things did not make sense. I'd honestly
much rather not have the suspicions that I do.

No, the grass in the picture is just what really got me thinking about it
originally. LOL! I mean, people have written reams and reams of
information on 9/11. It's hard to condense the valuable information down
into a single usenet post. Right here; this post is about as concise as I
can be, yet you can see how long it is.

Obviously people saw a 757. Other people saw other things. The people that
saw other things were disregarded. Much of the relevant information of that
day's events were disregarded. The pentagon crash is really the smallest of
the strange items of the day. Really, we're overlooking the fact that
nothing should have hit the pentagon at all.

I do question those eyewitness reports because we don't have video (or
rather video has never been released) to support those eyewitness reports.
They could say anything, and I really don't know why I should trust them. I
suppose that's the sticking point as far as that's concerned. Trust. The
last 5 years have given me very few reasons to trust the government.

I don't expect anyone to expend any effort to disprove my suspicions. The
actual investigation, however, wasn't a very good one. If you look beneath
the surface you see a lot of loose ends. Too many loose ends for me to be
comfortable with. Not all the information was taken into account. Many
leads were ultimately ignored.

I also understand what you are saying about the political agendas. I don't
think the disbelief of the official story has benefitted anyone politically.
It's more of a liability. It doesn't make a good ground on which to attack
the Bush administration either. You end up sounding like a wack-job! (Like
me, for instance!)

I don't have any answer to your question about the people. Nor do I think I
know the truth of what happened. As far as I'm concerned that hasn't been
provided yet.

I'd like to make some more points here, but I have a feeling that we're
going to continue to disagree. That's completely fine in my book. I
consider your points of view (Mark and Bzl.) to be completely valid. I'll
just probably never share those views. I don't think that makes me
unreasonable.

~e.





.