I'm not usually a fan of conspiracy theories. Given that they are generally more likely that they are due to human stupidity than to nefarious human intelligence. But this Flash movie makes its case rather well. Now I know that the Pentagon has a healthy appetite for consuming other countries and all that, but how the heck did it manage to eat 60 tons of airplane and 5300 gallons of fuel? Pentagon Crash
Give it up Mushroom, those of us who have spent years questioning and discussing the real agenda at work here are the choir and will continue to demand a full a truly encompassing investigation into all events of that (and preceding days) which this admin has done nothing but stonewall. Repeat posting of the issue will simply draw out the head in the sanders who check nothing and continue to deceive themselves with the laughable coverstory and the belief that our leaders could never possibly harm their own people to serve a larger more profitable agenda. No sense even bothering since it returns to the same dismissals time and again.
How about you give up? You may have spent years questioning and discussing the "real agenda", but where is your inrefutable evidence of these things? One day i'd like a conspiracy theorist, upon being presented with the evidence that they are wrong, to actually turn round and admit it. The fact is that leaders can't fake everything. They can't fake American Airlines wreckage on the Pentagon lawn. They can't fake damaged lamp posts on the route into the pentagon. They can't fake black boxes being found at the site. Etc etc etc.
Can't fake a piece of non descript painted metal (which shows no sign of beiing subjected to the intense heat of the fireball which resulted from the impact)? Youre clearly far more the conspiracy theorist than I could ever hope to be.
You're not really thinking are you? Front of plane collides with building, front of plane breaks up, debris from the front of the plane is strewn across the pentagon lawn, plane continues into building, fracturing the fuel tanks which are in the wings, fuel ignites, fire starts. The fireball wouldn't have started until the fuel ignites, which means half the plane is already destroyed before the fire starts. Oh, and explain how they got that nondescript (with an AA livery) piece of metal onto the lawn of the pentagon when basically the whole world was watching?
I know people who have worked there. The place is BUILT to withstand attack. It is a brick (concrete) shithouse. The wreckage was consistant with a plane hitting a basically indestructable building. Shrug. I got other things to worry about.
If it was indeed a jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon, how come none of the MANY confiscated surveillance tapes were released to prove it, with the exception of one grainy, very poor quality security tape in which nothing can be clearly made out, but when slowed down appears to be anything but a 757? How come the surveillance tapes that captured the crash from the nearby hotel and gas station were confiscated by the feds and never released to the public? What do they have to hide? Based on looking at the pictures alone, it is clear to see that what hit the Pentagon was NOT a jetliner, but most likely a missile, or even a fighter jet packed with explosives. By looking at the impact hole on the Pentagon's facade, there is no way, whatsoever, that a hole that small could have been the result of a collision from a Boeing 757. It's just not possible, and you don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. THEN, even more shoking evidence shows that whatever it was that hit the building, pierced through multiple rings of the building's steel-reinforced walls, and the hole is so clean and small that to think it was actually caused by a jetliner is insanity. This is a picture from inside one of the inner rings of the Pentagon. Do you think a jetliner could have done this? Again, remember, these are STEEL-REINFORCED WALLS. Do you see any evidence here that is indicative of a crash from a Boeing 757? Here is the impact site: Check out the documentary video 9/11: In Plane Site, which covers all of this in great detail. Also, check this page for more detailed information: http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm
I've seen the flashmovie thing, and I thought like 'hey they have a point...' And I also blieved all of their arguments... but then I saw this national geographic program that was about what happened exactly, and they gave explanations for the arguments that are used in the flashmovie (not literally of course, they wouldn't just make a program about some flashmovie, but they explained the whole crash and it solved every 'mystery') So I don't believe in the flashmovie anymore...
Just goes to show how easily a parade of suits on mainstream media can deaden all questioning even of the most glaringly and patently bogus coverstories. Chomsky had it down cold in his lecture "Manufacturing Consent".
Because they don't have to prove anything. People were there when it happend. A fucking airplane crashed - hello!! Then 12 fucking morons say they want to see the tape to prove it. Prove what? Do you think nobody saw a fucking airplane hit this building? Do you think that if it were hit by a missle that nobody would have seen that? Have you heard of anybody that saw a fucking missle in the air that day? How about an airplane? I bet the guy with the sideways car on the freeway saw an airplane.
