9/11 Pentagon Attack
4 people bested this!3 people are curious. |
Do you think this is the best? 
|
There is a large body of evidence suggesting that a 757 passenger airplane did not crash into the pentagon on september 11, 2001. One major piece of evidence is the absence of video or photographs of the airplane prior to, nor airplane wreckage after the impact. Especially since that particular compound is one of the most video-monitored locations in the world. The hole in the pentagon appears far too small for such a large plane to have hit it, and the CIA's unwillingness disclose more concrete evidence is particularly suspect.
Get Great Stuff at 
(and other places we like)
Members that think 9/11 Pentagon Attack is the best!
Comments
What else could it have been?
A bomb, a missle, a much smaller plane... given the confiscation of all visual evidence, and the CIA's history of cover-ups and disinformation, any conclusion would be an assertion, even the official story.
Wait what? why would they lie a plane hitting it?
huh, very interesting.
Why would they withhold the smoking gun proof that a plane did hit it? All we have is a smoking building and a story. Where's the plane? Where's the wreckage? Where's the video footage of the 757? Try sneaking up on the Pentagon without getting captured on video from multiple angles. Now imagine trying it as a passenger airplane. This is a cover-up theory that should be extremely easy to disprove. Why don't they do so?
I still dont get it. I mean if it wasnt a plane then what was it?
More importantly, if it wasn't the plane they say it was, then where did Flight 77 really go? Or did it really ever exist in the first place? Here's a quote from a Rumsfeld interview on October 12th, 2001:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
Was that a slip of the tongue? Maybe we'll never know.
dun dun dun .... The whole thing is a conspiracy!!! :O
Sorry HM but I just can't wrap my head around it
That's good. Doubt is no reason to believe the opposite. I don't particularly believe that it wasn't a plane either. I don't really care. Missile or plane, it effects me the same. But it's still a thought provoking theory.
In deed it doesn't effect me, (at least I dont think it does, and since I don't know then its the same as not at all) but it is thought provoking. But there are other contraversies that I would rather learn and argue about other then "The goverement is hiding things and telling lies" because that one will always be around.
Like what? The Roswell incident? Apparently that wasn't a plane either.
O I don't know, I can't think of any off the top of my head! :?
Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. -Benford's Law of Controversy
I would substitute passion with curiosity.
Your argument is definitely thought provoking and worth taking into consideration, however, I disagree with your assumption that the government was behind the attack on the Pentagon. If you don't think it was terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, then you automatically infer that the government was either solely behind all of it, or knew about the attacks ahead of time and still allowed them to happen. Going off of that implication, you would then have to believe that our government and military are responsible for taking the lives of 3,000 American citizens. I cannot accept that thought, but some people can. I do understand that it looks fishy that the evidence was quickly confiscated from the crime scene, but I believe there is good reasoning behind it. I do respect your argument and questioning, I personally just do not agree with it.
With respect, Nikki D
Ummmm.... I never made the assumption that it wasn't terrorists. I didn't even imply that. The theory is that the explosion was caused by something other than the 757 in the official story. That doesn't necessarily imply that somebody in the government knew it was going to happen ahead of time. I don't see what it was that I said which made you think I assumed that. I mean what if it was actually a missile, or a mobile, rocked-propelled explosive of some kind? I would certainly understand why somebody in the government might want to avoid letting the public know that a terrorist group was able to smuggle such a weapon into the country. I mean it doesn't excuse that kind of a cover-up, because I firmly believe that the public should know if that were the case, but I could understand the motivation behind that kind of action.
And besides, there is no assuming behind this theory. That's why it's a theory. It simply points out that no solid evidence of the "official" cause was ever released to the public, and that therefore, its accuracy remains in question.