Hmmm. Quite a selective list of quotes there. One would almost think that an AA 757 is what everyone saw hit the building wouldn't ya?

I'm not gonna get into an eyewitness quote battle. And it should be noted that some of those quotes have been condensed from their complete context - some of which contradict what we are told actually happened. (BTW Frank - Goddard is a 'conspiracy theorist'...and the links to articles from which they were sourced are gone <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />) It doesn't prove anything for a 757 hitting the Pentagon, just as contradictory quotes from eyewitness wouldn't PROVE a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. (Pentagon employees retelling a strong smell of cordite within the building might get interesting... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Neither have I stated anywhere that it was impossible for an AA designated airliner to be in the vicinity. There is a large contingent of truthers (based on witness testimony) that believe the best explanation involves a flyover.

Fact: The FBI rounded up and confiscated 80+ tapes from surveillance cameras around the Pentagon that very day. Why not show us the tapes? (Hell, why confiscate tapes?)

The lame Goddard page is telling. What proponents of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (which includes some truthers) don't want to get into is the 16 foot hole through which presumably a 60 ton, 124 foot wingspan, 44 foot tail height aircraft squeezed. The tail height is significant in light of this hole - as the external surface surrounding this hole - including windows - remains intact with absolutely no indication of even contact - let alone damage. Support columns within the building that withstood the impact are also indicative of a smaller craft. Of course a physics simulation paraded out by a respected university is convenient - especially when the simulation has neither of the two 6 ton ea. engines comprised mostly of titanium factored into the model. Also convenient is the fate of the tail - which remains attached and laughably collapses into the fuselage as it plows through a wall section that, in reality, sustains no damage.



Thinking is good. So do you think or do you know what hit the Pentagon?

I don't know. I'd like to. There is evidence that existed that should have readily dispelled any doubt. We are not allowed to see it.

Frank likes to hide behind the false premise that: If a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, then I should somehow omnisciently know what did and what happened to the passengers of 77 (I would assume they are dead as I've already stated). Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a claim, it reveals the predisposition to dismissing any evidence to the contrary that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. Instead of debating the evidence or lack thereof, we hear round after round of character assassination. In one post its Cynthia McKinney. In another its the rank of a witness. In another its 'bloggers'... It's very telling of what the official conspiracy theory can actually produce to back up their claims. When I counter Frank's defense of the Purdue simulation with objective observations, Frank moves on. When I counter with testiment to the fact that a significant portion of rescue workers and victims families are 'truthers', Frank moves on...



Wow - you've really got me pegged there Frank. Talk about conspiracy theory... Just a couple of problems with that:

Few people with in the '9-11 Truth' movement, including myself, initially believed the event was an inside job. Like most, I implicitly believed my government was telling me the truth. Once upon a time I ran into some counter claims to the official story regarding the Pentagon crash and looked into it. At the time one of the defacto references for debunking the Pentagon/inside job claim was a thread on the ATS boards. I read it. It was very convincing and I believed it and moved on, content that any claim contrary to the official story was bogus in light of this systematic rebuttal.

A couple of years later I had my own experience with the Israeli art student op. The response I got from my government began to make me doubt the trustworthiness of my government, however it wasn't until 2yrs beyond that I really started looking into the facts of 9-11 and coming to some disturbing conclusions.

Incidentally that thread I had read years ago on ATS lingered on itself for years afterwards. Come to find out the 'debunker' poster of the thread was traced down from IP and other boards as Pentagon intelligence. When proof of this was produced on his own thread, he was never seen there again. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />



What supercedes the truth Frank? What matters more?

Its interesting how you pit this us vs. them fictional assesment when you say:

If that is true. Then why is the main if not only thrust of the 'Truth movment' an information awareness campaign? What would be the point of me handing out flyers on my own dime and time in freezing weather to "sheep that don't think"?

There are some who refuse to think, who are so emotionally attached to their perceptions that they will do anything to maintain them. Unfortunately any chance of a rational discussion is lost as the best defense lies in an argument appealing to emotion...'unpatriotic', 'disrepectful of victim families', 'disrupting society', 'delusional', 'quite insane'...



Its a shame...and troubling ain't it Frank - exercising the right to free and open assembly is very dangerous. Perhaps you should advocate for 'Conspiracy Theory' Zones to ensure that correct perceptions are maintained and society is not disrupted. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/mrt.gif" alt="" />



Speaking of history Frank, exactly how preposterous is it to conjure up the insane idea that our government could ever conceive of such a dastardly deed based on this document (starting at pdf pg 10, and particularly pdf pg 13(doc pg 10))?

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/patriot.gif" alt="" />