Compelling evidence for jet/Pentagon

[heyjt]

Well, this is the most compelling evidence for the official story that a jet actually hit the Pentagon, Sorry if it's already been reviewed, but I don't believe I've seen some of this information before.<br> Perhaps we are spinning our wheels with the "how" part of the crime (Government cover-up), and should persue the "Why", ie: motive, supressed evidence etc.<br> Thoughts?<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html">www.abovetopsecret.com/pa...dence.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[DBtv]

All else is allowing the traiterous criminals to succeed.<br><br>The war against all peoples of the world is being fought by corporate globalist terrorists. <br><br>Death to corporations NOW.<br><br>RISE UP! <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

I expect this thread to continue on with more people telling you what is and what isn't "worthy of scrutiny". If I don't like the governments and corporations (or the symbiosis of the two) telling me what to think, then why should I submit to the same pressures coming from the sloganeering, self-styled "opposition"? <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

This evidence was just about as "compelling" as Bush's last stay-the-course in Iraq speech. Limp, dim, stoopud. <p></p><i></i>

[OpLan]

I noticed John Lear posting in the discussion thread there..he gets about a bit doesn't he..<br><br>Cat Herder cites the video of the phantom jet hitting reinforced concrete as back up...is there inconsistency here?..does a jet penetrate reinforced concrete or does it disintegrate into tiny pieces?Can it do both?he appears to be saying that the greatest mass of the aircraft, ie the wings filled with fuel, disintegrated on impact and the weaker body managed to penetrate..<br><br>All this speculation could end if they would only release those videos that we know they have.Why foster an atmosphere of suspicion when the video evidence would confirm the offical story? <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

Dude, everybody KNOWS the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, the planes were a hologram, and the "hijackers" are still alive!<br><br>We don't need this kind of fascist disinfo.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

when the video evidence would confirm the offical story?'<br><br>I think this is an important question. I asked it myself in an earlier blog post, somewhere - can't find it right now. I answered it this way: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>they want to foster an atmosphere of suspicion where there is nothing suspect.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"All this speculation could end if they would only release those videos that we know they have.Why foster an atmosphere of suspicion when the video evidence would confirm the offical story?"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>I can think of plenty of reasons. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Everybody knows. Everyone knows that Osama bush Ladin planned and executed 9/11 from his secret dialysis center hidden deep in the hills of Khandajoor. Everyone knows that the good Americans invaded Iraq to free them and bring them democracy. Everyone knows that Bush and Jeesuz are walking hand and hand as they plan our national policy and that Heck Brownie you're doing a great job!! They know as well that we had bettah nuke those Irans back to the stoneages before they do another 9/11 because everyone DOES know who "they" are after all. They left their passport on the sidewalk in front of the WTC just in case we forgot. <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html">Pentagon Truth</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> on Mark Robinowitz's OilEmpire.<br><br>Something I didn't know: <br><br>On <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/revue-en.php">October 8, 2001</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->, Thierry Meyssan's website "The mysteries of the attack against the Pentagon” first appears. Just <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>four days later</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, on <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.democrats.com/node/5056">October 12</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->, Rumsfeld makes his "misstatement" that it was a missile which struck the Pentagon.<br><br>Could it be Rumsfeld knew what he was saying, and was intentionally making a provocative "slip" to nourish the nascent disinformation campaign?<br><br>"Look over here." Who wouldn't say that when they don't want people looking over <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>there</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 4/27/06 8:41 pm<br></i>

[stickdog99]

Why should I spend any time on this? Perhaps a 757 hit the Pentagon, and perhaps it was something else or even a bomb. This disinfo stoked "controversy" in not even among my top 100 questions about 9/11. <br><br>Sure, if a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon, that would prove something important about 9/11. However, I haven't seen any absolute proof of this -- just a bunch of mis&disinfo questions mixed with several legitimate ones. But what would it prove if a 757 hit the Pentagon? Little to nothing in terms of who was ultimately behind it, AFAIAC.<br> <p></p><i></i>