A Different Perspective On the Pentagon - 9/11 Attack

This is like the people who obfuscate using 'evidence' to show that the holocoust didn't happen. Is he an expert in the results of airplane collisions? Does he provide evidence about what normally happens when comercial airliners crash?

NO.

He appeals to 'common sense', which has no actual bering on what happened. Because most people don't have much experience with the results. He poses lots of questions that start, "Can you explain..." without attempting to disprove or even provide any rational reasons. In short, using ominus, mysterious-sounding open-ended questions he attempts to make you unsure without providing any real evidence or disputing any real explinations with real fact. Instead, he attemts to flatter you by saying you're qualified to judge the caused based on the evidence of the aftermath. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

What would it matter if it was a truck anyway?

 

Was this analysis written by a Muslim?

 

I didn't see much of a plane at the Pennsylvania crash site either-- just a large hole in the ground.

 

1) Oliver Stone must be behind this article.

2) The Pentagon is a fortress and was designed to withstand an attack. Before Sept. 11, that section of the Pentagon had been remodeled and fortified.

3) From what I remember, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit. Im guessing this guy thinks they were paid off by the government to lie.

4) How about all the people that were on flight 77? If Flight 77 didnt crash into the Pentagon, what happned to it? Did it crash somewhere else? Why would the government say it crashed into the Pentagon when something else actually happened to it?

5) I personally, as an American, find this to be rogue journalism and argueably insulting. This is just like the whole moon landing controversy.

 

Hey, let him or her have their opinion. I don't think it is true, but if he provides evidence, we shouldn't be so dence to just find it insulting.

 

Here's a good debunking of that troll:

from Snopes.com

I'll also ditto all the previous replies, except for two of them.

 

That's the problem, though. He doesn't provide any evidence at all in the true sense of the word.

I could find some photographs and make up some stuff that the pictures supposedly show, but that wouldn't make those photos evidence of anything other than my willingness to subvert the truth in order to paint whatever picture I wanted to paint.

 

Here's a bigger question, why would the United States Government make up a story about a plane hitting the Pentagon? I mean, I know the Government isn't the most truthful group of individuals on the planet, but what's the advantage to making up such a story.

Plus, this book apparently claims that the US Government staged the entire event. Meaning that either the U.S. Government happened to pick a day when four airliners were hijacked by al Queda (three of which crashed, one disappeared into thin air if this story is true) to stage a bombing at the Pentagon.... Or the U.S. Government was behind the hijackings, as well. Of course, if they did that, why not crash the missing plane into the Pentagon instead of making it disappear.

I'm sure Generals from the Pentagon came to the Administration with the plan.

"We need to create an enemy. So lets hijack four airliners, have three of them crash into notable buildings, plant a truck bomb at the Pentagon and then make the fourth plane disappear."

"Why can't we just crash the fourth plane into the Pentagon?"

"Are you mad, son? Three crashes I could see. But there's just no way to crash four airplanes. It's not physically possible. So we gotta go with the truck bomb."

"So why make a plane disappear and pretend it crashed into the Pentagon? Isn't a large truck bomb still terrorism?"

"Son, you just don't understand the American people. They don't care about truck bombs. Only planes flying into buildings will get them. And before you ask, it has to be four planes. People will just go on with their daily lives if only three planes are hijacked and crashed. You gotta have four. This is the only way it'll work."

By the way, the dude who wrote the book has a new book out that apparently says a cruise missile painted to look like an American Airlines jet actually caused the damage at the Pentagon.

I suspect, by the way, that if we did not have video of the jets hitting the World Trade Center towers, this dude would have a book written "proving" that it wasn't Boeing jets that caused that damage, either.

 

Don't you see mrpaige. The whole affair was an elaborate ruse so the US government could kidnap the passengers and perform experiments on them to turn them into super soldiers. The three crashed airliners were ment to lend credibility to their story about what happened at the Pentagon, so no one would ask what happened to the passengers. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy dies in a car accident before too long.

 

What gets me is they totally discount the planes crashing into the World Trade center and NOT COMING OUT THE OTHER SIDE !!!

Guess what...they disinigrated....what an idiot.

DaDakota

 

If he does manage to keep from being offed in a suspicious car accident, I think you've found the topic of his next book.

 

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31355&highlight=9/11+pentagon+theory

 

I'm surpised no one has mentioned the security camera that filmed the plane slamming into the Pentagon. I must have watched that footage 20 times during the media blitz after 9/11, it was on all the major networks. If there is any real possibility of a cover up it would be the outside chance that a F-16 actually shot down the plane over Penn. I could at least understand why the government would want keep that under wraps (I don't think it happened though).

 

is there any way to email this moron who wrote the book?

 

The only reason I can think of for the gov to make a story up would be to discourage future attempts by truck/car bombs. If it actually was a truck, think of how many other fanatics would be trying this. It would actually make sense to me to lie about it, though I don't like being lied to. Of course I don't see any REAL evidence that we were lied to in the first place. But I could see a why.