LOLZ @ 'tactical think tank members'. It was the Joint Chiefs of Staff. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Reviewed by the Sec of Defense. Kennedy sacked him.



1) The majority of eyewitness didn't see the plane crash into the building. They saw a plane, then they saw an explosion. The topography of the Pentagon site and surrounding area (in a depression) makes viewing the ground levels of the Pentagon where it was impacted difficult from any perspective. Still others saw it fly over. So to selectively use witnesses that claim they saw it hit is...selective.

2) No evidence has ever been produced to demonstrate a 60+ ton 757 crashed into the building. None. Furthermore, the coincidence theory explanation for the small impact damage is explained within the context that the airliner "vaporized", "liquified", "disintegrated" on impact - Which directly contradicts any possibility of your #3 claim. We have a wheel - that fits the specs of a multitude of aircraft. We have one engine rotor that doesn't fit the specs of a 757 or a 757 APU - according to the manufacturers statements when asked. Futhermore, unless it is a Purdue design 757, this plane has two engines 6-7 tons each, comprised mostly of titanium. One very small, undersized rotor doesn't cut it for an explanation that a 757 hit the building:



3)Since there is no proof that the wreckege was from AA 77, there can hardly be proof of its passengers. What is claimed is 100% hearsay. There is no source for the claim. There is no proof of the claim. And of course - such a claim contradicts the official claim in #2. There are photos of victims that were released as evidence photos in the Mousauii trail I believe - they are victims that were in the building - why not show us these victims strapped in the seats?

And of course - Why not show us the 80+ tapes?

I'll tell you why:

North of the Citgo, north of the light poles.

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