Opinions Please

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:47 pm

I've watched a lot of these. They seem to be very convincing and damning evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAwtmun_ ... re=related

After watching the above, I'm convinced no 757 hit the Pentagon. I also have a theory. Flight 93 was supposed to hit the Pentagon, when that failed, \"somebody\" sent \"something else\" to make the strike.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:55 pm

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:00 am

Did you actually watch the video? I'd like to live in a nice fuzzy world too, but somehow I don't think that's the world we live in. Is the video fake? If so then to hell with the conspiracy theories, but if it's real, you can't fit a square peg in a 15x15 ft round hole.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:45 am

yea i liked the 757 (757 now? before it was a 747) hitting the pentagon story too. It was cute.

thing is, 747's don't have private jet sized engines.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:56 am

The thing about 9/11 conspiracy theories...

... on one hand, most people who argue for them are convinced Bush is an idiot whose inept Administration can't get anything right, whether that's a war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the financial market, and so on.

... yet, at the same time, they accuse the Administration of orchestrating the death of over 3,000 people and engaging in a cover-up that has been completely successful even seven years later.

I don't know about you, but I think that gives this Administration WAY too much credit. With well over six billion people in this world, and a considerable contingent of Islamic radicals who hate our incessant interference in their part of the world, is it really so difficult to fathom that one with the means and the ambition could launch such an attack?

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:23 am

That's the thing though. I look at this video and all the common sense in the world tells me that they are lying about it. Why lie if you didn't have a hand in it. The whole thing is infuriating to me. Every since 9/11 this country has been systematically weakened from the inside. I have no choice but to believe what I see.
Kyouryuu your absolutely right. No way just Bush and his administration could have pulled this off by themselves, if this was an inside job, many people would had to have went along with it. That's the most distressing thing about it.
This thing with the Democrats is baffling too . At this time they offer up a woman and a black man??!! It's almost as if they are intentionally throwing this election. I'm racist in no way, I've qualified that before in past posts, but I'm also a realist. Maybe the democrats are hoping that people will wake up and see what happened and that gives them a chance for this \"groundbreaking\" election, I dunno. Yet seeing as how 3 out of the last 5 elections, the American people have elected (that's debatable too) Republicans, this sure is an inopportune time to make such a gamble. Hillary had a better chance of winning the national election than Obama does.
I'm afraid this is the end of the free world as we know it.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:57 am

Dude pull yer head out and watch this.

This says it all concerning the terrorist attack on the pentagon.

There's way too much proof that a hijacked plane was intentionally flown into the pentagon to deny reality.

As far as the end of the free world goes, that happened during WWII.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:25 am

Ok man it's gonna have to be more than an animation to debunk live coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns ... re=related

I'm not so sure this is so far fetched. It's not like I dwell on these things ,but this close to the anniversary and I found some stuff I hadn't seen before. Funny you should bring up WW2, because I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't that long ago a madman named Hitler almost succeded in world domination, with the bulk of his countrymen going along with it. Had England not been an island he would have occupied the whole of Europe quicktime. Around this same time Stalin is reported to have murdered 20 million of his own with some putting the figures much higher. I know people who are still alive from those days. Is it not reasonable to think there may be the same kind of malevolence in the minds of the people in charge of our government.

I'm not saying for sure that our government did this, but lets say for the sake of argument they did.(There is a HUGE amount of live coverage that would suggest it too). What would be the motive? Terminal velocity is what speed? Indisputable is the fact that both towers fell at nearly freefall speed, common sense would dictate that had they collapsed from the top there should have been at least some resistance. It's all very suspicious actually, and deserves more than just a cursory glance and a stuck head in the ground.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:33 am

http://www.watchnewfilms.com/html/veoh.html

You guys should really check out the documentary on 9/11 here. Especially you people who only believe in science and what you can see, hear or feel.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:05 am

PUHLEESE

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:34 am

So someone took the commercial flight out of the air, removed the passengers and used pieces of the plane, the crews uniforms complete with DNA, etc. and planted all of that on a different plane that was then crashed into the pentagon...all within the time between when the commercial flight left the runway and the fake commercial plane hit the pentagon?!?!

Science indeed!! More like Mission Impossible 5

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:53 am

You mean Mission Impossible 6. Mission Impossible 5 is trying to fit a 757 through that hole in the Pentagon.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:45 am

So the point is….why?

Oh never mind, I forgot, those Republicans are evil!

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:15 am

Here's the kinda of things that get me.
This a a fact:
You take a ball, drop it from 400 meters it will consistently, every time, take 9 seconds to hit the ground. That's without any resistance other than air.

How long did it take the towers to fall?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I happen to be a fan of the truth and the laws of physics.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:23 am

flip wrote:Here's the kinda of things that get me.
This a a fact:
You take a ball, drop it from 400 meters it will consistently, every time, take 9 seconds to hit the ground. That's without any resistance other than air.

How long did it take the towers to fall?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I happen to be a fan of the truth and the laws of physics.

I don't know how long it took them but whenever you start your calculations please factor in the energy introduced by the intense heat and the nature of the construction which was basically tension holding the outer skin to the frame. Once the struts let go the skin was free to fall and the floors started slamming down on the next lower one like a stack of plates released by a busboy who just saw the Virgin Mary in the lobster tank on his way to set the tables!

You can selectively use proven scientific principles to explain any event you can imagine as long as you leave out other factors that don't support your theory...it doesn't make it real though.

PS: I don't smoke but inquiring minds wonder what's in your pipe....

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:16 am

Inquiring minds. Poor choice of words maybe

The towers fell at free fall speed. 8 seconds from a total standstill (potential energy) to totally collapsed (kinetic energy). That's indisputable. Theres no way to argue with that. How could they fall from the top down at free fall speeds?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:23 am

Will Robinson wrote:You can selectively use proven scientific principles to explain any event you can imagine as long as you leave out other factors that don't support your theory...it doesn't make it real though.

Exactly. As far as I know, it took the towers roughly 15 seconds to fall, not 8. You only get 8 seconds if you choose your evidence very selectively ...

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:54 am

Well this is what I was wondering the whole time. We disregard the fact a 757 cannot fit through a 15x15 ft hole, by stating that it's just absurd to think that our own government would do that,to debating the amount of seconds it took for the first and last steel structured buildings to EVER collapse from fire.

So far of over 100 views, we have one that states that its at least possible, and all the rest think that its impossible and only a fool would suggest it.

What kind of scientific principles do you apply to the hole in the pentagon? 15x15 ft hole that Dan Rather himself, standing at the scene as it's happening seems incredulous to think a jetliner went through through it.

I understand why though. It is a terrible thing to think. I'm just having a hard time getting my head around all the inconsistencies and physical evidence.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:59 am

Before we go any further, do you concede the free-fall point?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:07 am

Pandora wrote:Before we go any further, do you concede the free-fall point?

Ditto, especially since you were the one wielding it like Moses descending from the mount with tablets in hand!

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:10 am

No I wont concede that. 8-15 seconds AND the fact that they are the only 2 steel structures ever to fall from fire AND on the same day AND within just an hour or so of burning, makes it very hard for me to do that.

Science says that black smoke and red flames signify a fire that is oxygen starved. Also the fact that people are standing in the very hole where the planes went through kinda support the fact that the fire was starved of oxygen.I know we have had some fire fighters that were there that day post on this board. Would be nice if they chimed in and gave an opinion, although I kinda understand if they refuse.

Lemme ask you this. Have you or anyone watched the documentary I linked? I'm real curious as to what others opinions are pertaining to that.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:15 am

Will you can take low shots at me if you want. I'm only stating things that seem obvious to me. Moses I am not, just a guy that sees some things that don't add up or make sense to me.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:20 am

flip wrote:No I wont concede that. 8-15 seconds AND the fact that they are the only 2 steel structures ever to fall from fire AND on the same day AND within just an hour or so of burning, makes it very hard for me to do that...

I've seen steel structures fall from fire right here in my town so scratch that ridiculous "fact". Next, they fell on the same day because.....wait for it.....because they were both hit by freakin airplains on the same day...OMG it can't possibly happen OMG....

Hmmm, I wonder if the impact combined with that very hot fire could have destroyed key components that held the skin( frame and glass panels) on the building and that skin was the exterior support for the cement floor slabs and then when a floor or two slammed down onto the floor below it started a chain reaction since the building wasn't designed to withstand such a freak scenario....hmmm, how long would it take for it to fall....

I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you but you are trying way too hard to believe something that rivals Bigfoot for the unbelievable story of the century.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:28 am

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: \"We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.\"

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: \"The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.\"

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: \"Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned.\"

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

\"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.\"

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Wow after hearing from people that were actually there, I wish I could be as sure as you are Will.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:41 am

In a situation like this, when the evidence is difficult, I would look for plausible motive and work back from there. Actually, I think that's really where you have to start, unless you're an expert on aircraft, impacts, and/or explosions. I would also learn as much as possible about the authors of that video. Are they people who are in a position to really know what they're talking about, and what is their motive?

What about the original flights that deviated? Someone who wants to prove something like this needs to find the plane.

Personally I wouldn't waste my time on it, and it would take a lot of time and effort to get any definite answers.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:42 am

Here's one of the 'facts' from your post:

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Don't you think, being a lover of science, that this comparison is just a little bit...OK, much more than a little bit, more like completely irrelevant?!? After all the energy of the planes impact didn't dissipate into a warm breeze. Energy doesn't just go away, it usually changes whatever host it transfers into.

Another thought, what temperature does a steel cable need to be before it stretches? And if that cable stretches enough to allow the frame to bow out and stop supporting the perimeter edges of the concrete slabs.....

I can take a disposable cigarette lighter and put it to a small cable under tension and make it stretch a little. I wonder if I crash a jet plane into a structure then heat the parts of the structure that are under tension with burning jet fuel if I can get them to bow out enough to let loose the edges of the concrete slab floors....

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:25 am

flip wrote:We disregard the fact a 757 cannot fit through a 15x15 ft hole, by stating that it's just absurd to think that our own government would do that...

No, I disregard the fact a 757 cannot fit through a 15x15 ft hole because it's not a fact.

What IS a fact is that when an airplane slams into a hardened concrete structure at a high rate of speed, the airplane usually disintegrates into so many pieces that it is indistinguishable as an airplane. This is also the reason why you didn't see big parts of the airplanes comming out the other side of the tower when they hit. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the 15 x 15 foot hole was created by one of the engines. Google airliner crashes where the plane augured in at a high rate of speed and with a steep impact angle. You see virtually nothing left of the plane.

If the impacted structure is designed correctly, there will be very little damage to it. iirc, the Pentagon was designed to take some pretty punishing blows and not fail. The only parts of a 757 that are likely to do significant damage to the outer walls of the pentagon are the landing gear and the engines. These are both made of high strength steel. I was watching the live coverage that day, as was most everyone else, and distinctly remember seeing parts of the landing gear lying on the lawn next to the impact site. It sure looked like 757 gear to me.

Check out this video on youtube, see how much of the aircraft is left after impact, then get back to me.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:51 am

Yeah, the average airplane has the texture and density of a stack of aluminum soda cans stuck together with bubblegum. A plane is big and heavy in human terms, but it is actually not very dense at all because it can't be or it wouldn't be able to fly. And in the case of the pentagon, the plane crashed into the yard, not the building directly. A tremendous amount of the energy of the impact went into throwing up dirt.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:30 pm

Here is a question I have: if this was all orchestrated by the government, blah blah blah, where do we proceed from there? Do we just go \"oh the humanity\", would we charge the Bush Administration, or what?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:47 pm

Flip, I can appreciate your earnestness here, but the people publishing these documentaries are really stretching on most of these points. They're well-meaning and I'm sure they believe this stuff, but they state so many incorrect things it's just scary.

Here are just a couple from the article you quoted:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). ... It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

First, I'd like to see their calculations. But more importantly, they completely missed on the basic assumptions. It's pointless to calculate heat distributions across an entire floor, because there only needed to be high temperatures local to the steel. Given the temperature at which jet fuel burns, this is completely possible.

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

If it weren't such a tragedy, this one would be almost humorous in the way it completely misconstrues the context of the sentence from the FEMA report it quotes.

Look at it again, the FEMA report is referring to ensuing office fires, e.g. the secondaryfires. Of course those weren't significant.

-------------------

Honestly, I don't blame people for buying into these conspiracy theories. They're convincing at first glance, and they're presented in a way that lets the viewer/reader think they know more than they really do.

I have a little more reason to be skeptical, from personal memory:

I don't know how many of you remember, but not long after the April 19th, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in my hometown of Oklahoma City, an investigation was called to look into accusations that there was a high-level cover-up allowing the bombing to happen (or possibly even planning/funding it). OKC Firemen and Policemen were accused of \"getting there too fast\", theories abounded about extra conspirators, and city officials were questioned about having prior knowledge of the attack. [Of course, the truth eventually prevailed, although there are still sites out there which perpetuate some of those claims.]

So all the 9/11 conspiracy theories is really a bit déja vu for me. From the first one I heard [\"See the windows on the first floor blow out? It must have been a demolition!\" (it's been shown to have been due to pressure from the collapse)], they've always had the same M.O.:
- science claims by non-experts
- vague or wildly-implausible scenarios (\"They rerouted the jet, buried it, killed all the passengers and crew, forged the records, and shot a missile into the Pentagon to make it look like that's where the plane crashed!\" Really...?)
- presented so that the audience feels \"in on the secret\"

These issues are worth looking at, but you can't allow yourself to be taken by slick presentations.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:00 pm

Dedman. Ok those are the kinds of things I like to see. That makes it alot more feasible in my mind. One thing that still bothers me about that. That wall was meant to be impenetrable, and yet still the wings of the much smaller craft, survive intact. I'd need more than just that.

Will: As far as I know, and I've heard it reported several times by different sources, that no STEEL structured high rise building has ever collapsed by fire.

You seem to take pleasure in misconstruing what I've said. I mention the word science and you take that to mean I claim it is all scientific fact.

You guys should really check out the documentary on 9/11 here. Especially you people who only believe in science and what you can see, hear or feel.

There are some scientific laws in that documentary that can't be disputed. I did not mean that everything was "Science" from that point on.

I used the word fact here for this particular point:

You take a ball, drop it from 400 meters it will consistently, every time, take 9 seconds to hit the ground. That's without any resistance other than air.

fact a 757 cannot fit through a 15x15 ft hole

fact that people are standing in the very hole where the planes went through

fact that both towers fell at nearly freefall speed

8-15 seconds considering the mass of steel and concrete that is undamaged below the impact point is "nearly" free fall speed.

Will Robinson wrote:Here's one of the 'facts' from your post:

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

No, there are very obvious facts in that paper. I would only claim this to be an opinion based on facts. I would never claim this to be a fact.

Ok and lastly. I don't feel myself one easily misled. I'm prob the biggest skeptic I know. Most of that documentary is made up of people who were there or physicists, engineers ans scintists who say certain things are impossible. A guy employed by the pentagon to identify planes by their parts from pictures, so on. Really credible, astute and well educated in their field. Much more than I could summarize in my posts.

Has anyone bothered to watch the documentary yet?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:07 pm

Actually Krom the plane missed the yard except for a few lamp posts and a generator and ploughed directly into the building at full speed. Not at landing speed where most people see aircraft and debris from crashes but at full out flying speed. It turned into scrap in milliseconds. A pile of empty soda cans held together with bubble gum is a good description.
Nice how the missile conspiracy people skip the damaged lamp posts that take the wing span of a 757 to hit and all the debris and instead take the word of the kind of people that can't tell you the colour, make, type, speed, of a car that crashed near them.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:07 pm

Foil: I missed your post as I was writing mine.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/gua ... ow-hot.htm

This is the paper I pulled the earlier quote from in its entirety. I myself cant claim there calculations as fact. This though I can assume is:

Specifications:
JET A-1
Flash point: 38°C
Auto-ignition temperature: 210°C
Freezing point: -47°C (-40°C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980°C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:16 pm

flip wrote:That wall was meant to be impenetrable, and yet still the wings of the much smaller craft, survive intact. I'd need more than just that.

If you view the video again, you will notice that the wingtips didn't impact the wall. The wing span was wider than the wall section. As for being impenetrable, I believe the Pentagon was built to be pretty close to impenetrable by 1950's (or whenever it was built) standards.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:20 pm

flip wrote:Specifications:
JET A-1
...
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980°C (1796 °F)

There you go. Heat distribution across an entire floor is irrelevant, because the local burn temperature at the steel could easily have been more than enough.

I understand that you're trying to be skeptical, Flip. Those presentations are very careful about keeping the audience convinced that they are looking at credible arguments and coming to their own conclusion. They just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:23 pm

hehe.. well, you asked for our opinion, and most of us think it's crap. *shrug*

Personally, I'm tired of conspiracy theories. Sure, they probably happen on some level. Go get tied up with Princess Di's death. THERE'S a real candidate for a conspiracy theory.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:34 pm

Dedman the plane did penetrate into the 3rd ring I think. What bothers me is that they say the \"whole\" plane disintegrated. Also the 15x15 ft hole is where they claim the cockpit hit. That's supposedly the center of the impact with little or no damage to either side. That jet has 2 9ft engines made of titanium alloy and steel. Logically there would be at least 2 holes? And since the whole plane hit the side of building and only the center section of the plane or just one engine went through that hole, I would at least expect a pile of aluminum debris on the outside, considering the size of the hole and the width of the plane. Also they show themselves picking up aluminum debris scattered across the lawn. These pieces are nowhere near as dense as the engines yet by their own claims there were no engines to be found. I'm not convinced of anything at this point.

Foil do me this one service before you logically deduce by your own reasoning and capacity that I'm just some poor misguided youth that can easily be led astray.

Watch the documentary. Then tell me what you think.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:35 pm

No Duper. I think most of us have been scared to reply

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:44 pm

yet by their own claims there were no engines to be found

And the photos of impeller rings are of what?
Never mind. This is as pointless as debating science with a young earth creationist.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:49 pm

flip wrote:Watch the documentary. Then tell me what you think.

Flip, with all due respect, these "documentaries" have been floating around for the part 6 years or so. Most of us have seen and discounted them years ago. I don't presume to know how old you are or where you were during the attacks, but most of us here were watching everything (after the first tower was hit) live on CNN and every other TV news outlet before any spin doctors could get to the video record.

News crews got to the Pentagon minutes after the plane hit. I remember seeing what looked like a pretty standard crash site on CNN. There were some landing gear chunks laying about and the usual amount of flotsome from the plane. Had it been a missle or something like it, those things wouldn't have been laying on the lawn; unless you beleive they were placed there by the conspirators either right before or right after impact. They couldn't have done it right after wards due to the newsies being there. And it is highly unlikely they did it before the impact. Some one would have had to have seen the activity and asked "whatcha doing?"

Opinions Please

Opinions Please

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: