<MOD ALERT> Derogatory comments, insults, name-calling, etc. that are, or appear in the judgement of moderators intended to be, directed personally at other forum members are not permitted. This forum is a place for 'respectful debate' - other forum members should not be regarded as the subject of the discussions. Members must not attack or harass (by repeated personal attack, accusation, baiting, trolling, posting/demanding personal information, etc.) other members in discussion threads even if they believe their attack/insult to be 'true' or 'fact'. CONTINUED ATTACKS AND PERSONAL RIDICULING WILL RESULT IN THREAD BANS. More than 20 years later, we still don't know what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. What we do know is that the overwhelming evidence proves the official 9/11 story is a lie in many major aspects, for all 3 sites, New York City, Shanksville and the Pentagon. The evidence about what really happened at the Pentagon can be broken down into these major theories: The Official 9/11 Theory of course is that Arab terrorists flew a passenger jet, Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour into one wall of the Pentagon. This theory promoted by the US government has never been proven and much of the evidence supporting it is dubious and/or missing. These are the counter theories: Theory A: Multiple explosions from pre-placed explosives, not due to a plane impact, and a plane, not Flight 77, destroyed at/near the Helipad Theory B: A Missile Struck the Pentagon Theory C: No 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 Theory D: A plane with the dimensions of a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon These theories will be discussed at a conference today: https://richardgage911.org/9-11con-...8SW9OteFBW6xZ9KNibDYdCazNTpRSJ_eg8Pc6bGatnufc
Hey Bob, whatever happened to your thread with the Wayne Coste video presentation narrated by Chandler? You know, the one that proves a 757 hit the Pentagon?
I think you mean this one: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...agon-on-9-11-moderator-warning-issued.482175/ I don't know what happened to the PDF. It's not proof in any case, it's just a hypothesis just like Honegger's hypothesis. And even if a large plane did impact the Pentagon, there's no evidence it was AA77. As usual the official story makes no sense for many reasons, as well discussed.
1) Rumsfeld said it was a missile 2) The internal damage was not consistant with the angle of the alleged plane impact 3) People testified that they smelled cordite 4) Only a few small scraps were found on sight. 5) No plane was seen on video cams. 6) No broken windows from vertical stab. 7) No vertical stab on outside of building. No luggage. 9) No cut off wings 10) Rebar bent outward.
This is important. Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001! April Gallop: Eyewitness at Pentagon on 9/11 Says There Was No Plane Debris https://www.winterwatch.net/2023/01/april-gallop-eyewitness-at-pentagon-on-911-says-no-plane-debris/ (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------ April Gallop was in the Pentagon on 9/11 working in her office as “the object” hit. Here is her eyewitness account of what she experienced. The money part starts at minute 2:00. She saw no evidence of a large airliner. [Video title: “Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001!”] Incidentally, I had someone posing as April Gallup contact me by email a few years ago with an evil shaming ruse requesting that I remove this interview. Nice try. Later, Gallop gives clues about how the Crime Syndicate controls the process. She said that while she was in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once. “They never identified themselves or even said which agency they worked for. But I know they were not newsmen because I learned that the Pentagon told news reporters not to cover survivors’ stories or they would not get any more stories out of there. The men who visited all said they couldn’t tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do, which was to take the (Victim Compensation Fund) money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” ------------------------------------------------------------
It's just one of those incredibly unfeasible things. This is pure sepeculation that follows, but I have to say I cannot imagine anything alternative to it. So, let's set the scene. Some sort of early planning meeting where 1,2 or more of these unknown people are having a preliminary discussion on what to do once the planes are hijacked/or whatever. Shadowy figure 1: Right, so once we've got control of AA77, fly towards the Pentagon and hit it. Shadowy figure 2: No. I disagree. I think we should use a missile. Nobody will notice. Shadowy figure 1: Ok, so doesn't that kind of complicate it a bit? Shadowy figure 3: I think we should use a military plane instead. Shadowy figure 1: Sorry guys, surely we're needlessly complicating this? Shadowy figure 2: No, not at all. Piece of cake. Shadowy figure 1: Well now.... We have to get rid of the actual plane. Create loads of pieces for it. Magically distribute them around the crash scene and hope nobody notices. We need to get rid of the passengers. Chop them up and stick a few body parts around. They have to be burnt and then we need the DNA from them so they can be identified. We need to convince air traffic control it's been hijacked. We need to fabricate some passenger cell phone conversations. If we're firing a missile we need to involve military or 3rd party and it must be accurate. If it's another plane it's got to be hidden from radar somehow and nobody notices it disappearing. Then if it's a remote control plane someone has to fly and crash it. Shadowy figure 2 and 3: Sorry boss. We're just not thinking straight. You're right it's totally insane to even consider. But what the hell, let's just do it. Shadowy figure 1,2 and 3: High fives everyone.
Ok then, it's a done deal, nothing more for you to see here. When I said "we", I meant everyone, not just you and whoever else bought the official 9/11 story.
Funny you should say that, Bush also said no one could imagine planes flying into buildings. I have no idea what exactly happened at the Pentagon, too much evidence is missing (i.e deliberately covered up). But given the official 9/11 narrative, it's 100 certain that it isn't true. I can't speculate as to what actually happened, I did post 2 competing hypotheses, but for sure it wasn't your "pure sepeculation (sic)" that you "cannot imagine anything alternative to it" either.
A plausible scenario that would explain the bodies is put forward at the 44:00 time mark of this video. 9/11 Painful Deceptions - 2005 (full length)
Sorry, material evidence sets the scene not you. If there was one. Material evidence? I seen maybe a pickup truck, no engines, no landing gear, maybe one wheel (they have many more) People distributing things is not magic. There first has to be a plane, please prove a plane exists first. There first has to be a plane, please prove a plane exists first. There first has to be a plane, please prove a plane exists first. NORAD took care of that. Two people sitting side by side can do that LOL Nah all you need is a flatbed and mount. Nothing happened to the e4b. I got one of those, I got a remote controlled car too, fun Im not sure what you are trying to accomplish here? Nothing you posted is directed to the hard evidence its all speculatory which has literally little to zero usefulness when examining the event as I have just shown.
So you posted "2 competing hypotheses" and they are not speculation? Is that what you are saying? Well done spotting the typo! Why did you quote Bush and say "he also said" something I didn't say!? Answer please. Did you actually read that list and work out how ludicrous a non-AA77 scenario is? Or do you genuinely think that is actually a possibility? I suspect you will
I would like to know, have you done the same as you request for "it-was-a-757"? This has all been thoroughly debunked like years ago. Did you come up with an explanation why there were no wing tips on the ground? I assume you DO know that the wing tips are so thin you cant walk on it without putting your foot through it? Based upon the evidence this is the only possible way it could have been a 757 and this is drawn precisely to scale. I presume this is what you believe and want us to believe?
No, I never said that. Everything is speculation unless and until proven otherwise since there's an extreme lack of supporting evidence for the official 9/11 account. Irrelevant but thanks. Because it brought back memories of what he said that was similar to what you said. That doesn't mean I'm insinuating you said the same thing. The official 9/11 narrative is replete with the "no one could have imagined" and "a failure of imagination" lies. Didn't I post that I read everything in this section of the forum? There's no confirming forensic evidence that it was AA77. That doesn't mean it wasn't AA77 and it also doesn't mean there was no plane (although that's highly suspect too). But given that the FIOA request for such evidence was denied twice, the probability is high that it wasn't AA77. If they have nothing to hide why did they hide everything?
Even when I specifically typed "This is pure sepeculation that follows" you post that? Did it confuse you? I was setting the scene on my speculation. Right. Rewind... Shadowy figure 1: Don't forget to fake all the actual passengers. They can't be alive. All their relatives. Their funeral/memorials. All subsequent compensation litigation. The take off The actual plane All air traffic control interactions! All radar readings. Don't accept any actual bookings for the "fake flight" even though it's scheduled regularly. Still have to fake all the cell phone conversations. Oh, we also need some lampost demolition performed. And some random damage to areas on approach. I could smack my forehead with a fifty-foot wide purpose-built acme facepalm and it still wouldn't suffice. Getting them secretly involved and keeping them quiet is. We need people to mangle up bits of plane and burn landing gear, wheels etc. Bits of engine. A dozen or so needless people, all happy to do a bit of "evil-gubment-murder", just doing their bit. Air traffic control spoke with the plane. No, really they didn't. But we have witnesses. Actual people who spoke with their relatives. Are witnesses suddenly unreliable when they contradict any unfeasible aspect of the"evil plot"? For casual viewers, do any of you think this ever growing number of people needing to be involved is getting way, way beyond an absurd level? God knows how many to get this latest side-issue done,with no paper or electronic trails in perfect secrecy and working flawlessly.
These are very slow speed taxiway accidents! thats a A380 Airbus!!! This one hit a little drone!! Im not sure where people get the impression planes have some sort of God like infinite super power
Wait a second, so it has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REALITY OF THE ACTUAL EVENT? Is that the purpose of your thread @Bob0627 or are fantasy scenarios that take this thread off on a tangent fit the premises of the OP? If it is, let me know if you intended this thread include pure fiction, cuz then Im out of this thread, Im not in here to waste my time discussing fantasies. I set the scene on known facts surrounding the event.
Hyperbole. It is 100% relevant and everything to do with the event. If no actual plane ever existed (facepalm): Of course the real plane existed:
The purpose of the thread was strictly to present 2 opposing hypotheses, both from sources that have challenged the official 9/11 narrative. No one actually knows what the reality of the actual event is. IMO the best approach is to rule out what is not possible as closely as it can be done. For example, we can rule out that 3 massive high rise towers all collapsed at unimpeded free fall and near free fall into their own structures from planes, damage, fire or any combination, all in one day. That is impossible because a) it violates basic laws of physics; b) it has never happened before to any steel framed high rise; and c) even if we are to discount both a and b, the odds of that happening to all 3 towers on the very same day is nearly infinitely prohibitive. So we're left with what is possible. “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes"
Ok... With that in mind I just laid the groundwork to prove it could not have been a plane since no airbus manufacturer sells light pole mowers. In fact airbuses and afaik all airliners have marking on the wing where you can step to insure you do not accidentally put your foot through the wing by stepping in the wrong place, proving how fragile the wing is especially at the tips. Wings are design maximized to withstand vertical loads not lateral loads since they are not flown through molasses. If we look carefully at the wing of a 757 we can see the no step zone, anywhere outside the line on the wing. It goes almost too the tip of the wing, outside that boundary there is risk your foot will go right through the wing. That is why its put there. Like I said I dont know how people ever got the impression planes were invincible when in fact they are extremely fragile. That being the case the wing tips should have been sliced off like a hot knife through butter and laying in the yard long before it reached the pentagon and likewise wtc 1 and 2, they would have been sheered at the wall, not went through like an invincible steel mower
