Video : Airplane not crashing, a bunch of pointless qoutes... thinking it's a missile, showing sectors of the pentagon and how the plane couldn't have possibly crashed into it... no land erosion or mark on the landing, all the camera tapes from different places being confescated by the FBI. Don't get me wring Matt, I agree with you, and I agree that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon. I just knew all of these facts beforehand.
Well, it just seems odd that he says it covers everything he already knew. Michael Ruppert is not Michael Moore. We're taking in-depth, highly critical analysis here. I don't think most people know even an eighth of what Ruppert presents on this video, unless they have been studying government and the 9/11 attacks for many, many years.
Oh, I thought you were talking about Michael Ruppert's video. Nevermind. But yeah, a lot of people knew for a long time about the Pentagon crash.
I have done my online reading, and have read reports similar to those of Ruppert before, I would link you, but I doubt that you read Hebrew.
I'm sorry to rain on your conspiracy parade, but Snopes already proved this theory so wrong it made the French cream their pants. This bogus theory was started by some French moron... http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
About the whole wreckage being left behind...In that video they show plane crashes in fields and random open areas trying to prove how there's always wreckages left behind.. Too bad it's ALOT different when a plane crashes into a big building at high speeds. They never show that.... Your not gonna find anything but debree and small pieces scattered.. There is no "wreckage" site because the impact causes the plane to burn up and break into small pieces.. What do you expect? Some wrecked plane in a concentrated area in the exact place it crashed? No.. There was debree all over the pentagon lawn... Get some common sense...
LOL..I love how the whole basis of all your arguments, except for maybe PressedRat, rely solely on this fucking flash video.. This video is made from some random person who obviously doesn't have full knowledge of what happened on that day, yet tries to make outrageous theories.. There was visible debree from a plane on the lawn..Just look at that link I put up... Relying on some random flash video you watch ON THE INTERNET is just as bad if not worse as relying on some crappy fucking American news station..
Ok, well, let's say you are right. You still cannot explain the size of the hole in the building being much smaller than the plane which was reported to have hit it. And the wreckage STILL would been seen, at least the engines of the plane. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel casing of jet engines. But really, believe what you want. You can't help that people want to question things that just don't add up to what we've been told.
Well, to play devils-advocate and to ask way too many questions because i like to............. ????.......????........} what proof is there that that footage is even true. again, in case you didnt catch it before, im on no side. i just speak my mind and try to think logically. im not the at that naturally but im cynical as fuck now.
The footage is definitely real, as the pictures taken from the US Department of Defense website, as well as the US Army website, show the exact same thing. This footage is hardly new, nor are the questions rasied. The Pentagon footage has been in question right from the beginning.
i am all with with u on this one...but somthing that is confusing to me is this pic do u think that it could be superimposed
I think Pressed_Rat (and others) would be interested in this: http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm