Jump to content

9/11 - What Hit the Pentagon?


OneFinger
This topic is 6663 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

OK, I have serious doubts about conspiracy theories. But I stumbled across a website that raises serious questions about what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11. They claim airplane debris was never found, that damage was not consistent with a large plane, and security camera tapes from other buildings were seized and never released. They suggest it was hit my a missile fired from a small plane.

 

Check it out and post your thoughts. If the passenger jet really didn't hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it?

 

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>OK, I have serious doubts about conspiracy theories. But I

>stumbled across a website that raises serious questions about

>what really hit the Pentagon on 9/11. They claim airplane

>debris was never found, that damage was not consistent with a

>large plane, and security camera tapes from other buildings

>were seized and never released. They suggest it was hit my a

>missile fired from a small plane.

 

The web site does raise some intriguing questions. I am a little surprised there isn't more of a "Kennedy Assassination" air about the whole 9/11 thing already. Heaven knows there are more than enough unanswered questions and this is just one more.

 

While the video does raise some questions, I want to validate a couple of the claims from other sources. One does wonder what happened to AA77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Have any of the families of AA77 passengers seen or reacted to the web site at all?

 

Most interesting.

 

--EBG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight........

 

Passengers on the plane call their loved ones and say they've been hijacked (including the Solicitor General's wife). Then minutes later "something" smashes into the Pentagon (on camera, I might add - I've seen the video) and I'm suppose to believe that every person on that plane is in cahoots with some massive conspiracy and that the plane never really crashed into the Pentagon.

 

ok, I'll buy that

 

I'm sorry, you're going to have to excuse me, I have to run now, I'm getting an important incoming message on my tinfoil hat from the planet Gruzzaak.

 

Intergalactically yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Let me get this straight........

>

>Passengers on the plane call their loved ones and say they've

>been hijacked (including the Solicitor General's wife). Then

>minutes later "something" smashes into the Pentagon (on

>camera, I might add - I've seen the video) and I'm suppose to

>believe that every person on that plane is in cahoots with

>some massive conspiracy and that the plane never really

>crashed into the Pentagon.

>

>ok, I'll buy that

 

I never said I did. But, the video does raise some interesting questions, not the least of which is how did the plane, flying very low, manage to miss some trees taller than the height of the impact zone.

 

A couple of things not quite adding up should not be construed as implying a conspiracy. The video, by the way, almost looks like the trailer for some sort of "Blair Witch" type of video. Very professionally produced. Does it have any credibility? I don't know. But, I do have a copy of the ASCE report on the Pentagon damage. Easy to see if their statements are in alignment with the ASCE.

 

>I'm sorry, you're going to have to excuse me, I have to run

>now, I'm getting an important incoming message on my tinfoil

>hat from the planet Gruzzaak.

 

Have them patch you through to General Fzdcvrkrvck and give him my regards.

 

--EBG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm sorry, you're going to have to excuse me, I have to run now, I'm getting an important incoming message on my tinfoil hat from the planet Gruzzaak."

 

I have to run too, Uncle Martin's antennae just went up and he has to phone home.

 

I personally didn't witness the event, but I know others who were in the Pentagon at the time of the attack and many others who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. Excuse me, if I believe them over some doctored up internet trash! I also personally knew some of the people on board flight 77, and so far, they have not reappeared into my life.

 

Anyone who would "buy into this trash", really needs to examine WHY they would do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to agree that this theory is very strange. I originally "borrowed" it from another site and here is a very good response that someone else submitted:

 

This approach on the Pentagon events is not new... In the summer of 2002, French journalist(?) Thierry Meyssan published a book called Pentagate which covers essentially what the video talks about. In fact, it looks more like the video itself is based on this book. Detailed links on this book are more readily available in French, but this link will give you an idea:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592090281/102-6667868-5093761?v=glance

 

This one is a link to the book publishers:

 

http://www.pentagate.info/sommaire-en.html

 

This book was a follow-up to another book he released on February 11 of the same year (2002) and which was then the talk of the planet. It was called L'Effroyable imposture (later released in English as The Big Lie). http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/sommaire-en.php

 

This book adressed the whole September 11 events, not only the Pentagon attack. It proposed a very controversial analysis, where conspiracy played in important role. It was translated into 26 languages, and four more are (were?) in the works. At the time, it was the subject of many television programs and newspaper discussions by readers and specialists, here and abroad. In the US, it was met with total anti-French hysteria, this long before France announced it would not participate in an attack on Iraq, and it was dismissed with no further due. And this before the English version was released and just about no one in the US had even read it.

 

In the link I mentioned above, the left frame is only in French, so I translated it for you and anyone else interested:

 

"In The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan investigates about the drifting of the American political system and about the founding act of the Bush regime: the September 11 2001 attacks. The author first demonstrates that the official version about the attacks doesn't hold the road. Then he studies in detail the change in regime. September 11 appears like a real coup d'État amidst the first democracy. In the name of the victims' memory, the Bush administration imposes its own will and methodically destroys all the counter powers.

 

The Big Lie is a political work. Thierry Meyssan analyzes the shifting of power in the American power structure and the vertiginous growth in the military budgets. He examines the suspension of civil liberties and the surveillance system of every citizen put in place by the USA Patriot Act. He reveals the hidden agenda behind the Afghanistan War and the secret operations of the «War on terrorism». He brings out the main lines of the new expansionist policy of the country, well before attacking Iraq was publicly mentioned.

 

Translated in many languages, The Big Lie met with international success. Many governments used its analyses to define their policies towards the new regime in Washington."

 

I have not read any of these two books. And I am usually skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories. However, I still don't comprehend how a pulverized 757 can drill a neat 2 meter hole through the reinforced concrete walls of three layers of buildings. I do understand a missile can do this. Then again, if it was not AA's 757 that hit the Pentagon, then where is it? I have read in one of the thousands of internet pages that can be found on this book or about its theories (many in English and by Americans - try this one and surf http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm ) that in the early sixties, there was talk in the American military apparatus to deliberately stage an attack on American soil and put the blame on Castro, so as to convince the American people to go to war with Cuba. I am certainly not ready to make a parallel with the New York WTC events as some have. However I have no problem at all in believing the sixties thing might be true, since I've seen it done before, right here. In the early seventies, after the small bout we had in Québec with terrorism, our federal police (RCMP) planted bombs, set barns on fire, and issued false communiqués claiming the attacks in the name of the FLQ (Québec Liberation Front); and while fake plumbers were burglarizing the Watergate in Washington, real RCMP agents were burglarizing the very legal and democratic Parti Québecois's head office and stealing its members lists in their computers. I am not even talking of the rounding up at five in the morning of over 500 community workers, union leaders, poets, singers, and generally speaking people who had a higher vision of their society and who had nothing to do with terrorism, and who were held for months, never accused of anything and eventually released without any explanation or apology. The government used terrorism as an alibi to crack down on these people who were disturbing their established order. All this in the name of Canada of course. Never underestimate people who take on themselves to 'save' the Nation. Never underestimate what the people behind Bush were and still are ready to do to push their agenda. And never underestimate what is really behind the Patriot Act. Beware.

 

End of Quoted Response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...