Because the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane.

This is correct. Where did the wings go? What about the debris field?

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=9&rdm=mhgf7wvi#/watch?v=jLXyB5GtfBU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjLXyB5GtfBU

the wings are mostly aluminum, hollow and full of fuel, hitting a building at 600 MPH would vaporize them, since the pentagon was re-enforced concrete you can see why only the windows blew out at the wings (little mass of wings) while where the fuselage hit there was a hole, as most of the planes mass hit the center and blasted through.

The engines were not made of aluminum. The wingspan of a 757 is 125 feet. Try again.

which is why they found part from them.

No "they" didn't. Present your evidence for this claim.

Also, check the photographic record. The pre-collapse entry hole was 20 ft. In diameter at most. Rework your theory so a 757 fits through a hole that size. This is such tired old news as to hardly warrant the typing.

http://imgur.com/a/z1xeV

and just for fun 75+ people who saw a plane

Thanks for posting. I.could.state the same ol' tired dubunking arguments as to the problems of.scale with the rotors , lettering, window/wings etc...but then again; it's not worth the typing. You enjoy your paradigm and I'll enjoy mine.

it's not worth the typing

Obviously.

the hole is going to be smaller as the only part the breaks thought would be near the center, you really thing that a plane hitting steel reinforced concrete would make a perfect hole to fly through?

Wrong again

about what?

lol

whats funny? you finally understand phycis?

So EVERY other plane crash we have EVER seen has plane parts, rather large plane parts mind you, strewn all over the crash site. Including a giant scorched silhouette of the planes body in the grass, yet no such thing exists in front of the magical grass of the Pentagon! A crash so insanely immense that it disintegrates a plane completely yet books and monitors and filing cabinets are sitting right on the edge of the broken floors of the pentagon completely unscathed. Wow.

So EVERY other plane crash we have EVER seen has plane parts, rather large plane parts mind you, strewn all over the crash site.

Wanna bet that you are wrong?

I bet that the lawn of the pentagon looked immaculate compared to any other plane crash ever.

so uh, maybe it didn't crash into the lawn?

here, lets look at the pentagon from a angle conspiracy theorists never show

Messy, but not the crash of a passenger jet.

Yep. That all looks like building and office material.

most plane crashes are at low speed due to the pilots trying to not get fucking killed and that is why you have lots of parts, when a plane crashes at 600 mph theres nothing left, did they find plan parts from the WTC crashes? no

600 mph passenger jet into a building would do a lot more damage to the pentagon then what actually happened. Use common sense here! Even 600 mph into the ground would leave a huge black crater in the ground and an immense firepit would be created

and you know this how?

Well I COULD use the twin towers as a reference.

difference being one hit a building and the other the ground, did they even find any wreckage from the towers?

fire pit? the reason the buildings burnt was the shit inside, you think a plane is gonna burn soil?

Alright. This can go back and forth forever. Lets just agree to disagree

about what?

can we agree that a plane hitting a building made of steel and developed for a "core" structure is different than hitting the ground and very different from a building made from steel reinforced concrete?

You say plane, I say missle or drone.

why did they use a missle on the pentagon? whats the motive there?

Invoke fear into the public and give the government the reason to go to war.

I'd like to recommend that you stop replying to i8hippo2, and instead go through his post history and down-vote everything. This will make it more difficult for him to post his asinine insinuations masked in the form of questions.

Oh I thought he was a real person not a... You know...

Shill? Troll? Propaganda operation?

whats the reason for war?

The "attacks on America by "foreign " terrorists. Stop being a douche.

no no no, you miss understand, why do they want war? "they" planned the attacks so they could go to war, now what do they want the war for?

Do you think Pilots for 9/11 Truth are mistaken?

[deleted]

yeah your right IM the one with mental problems not the guy thinking everything is a conspiracy and the government is out to get him.

Who the fuck knows, that was all shipped to China and destroyed/recycled as fast as humanly possible.

Nice try Shilly McShillalot.

no, facts.

Aluminum does not vaporize, even if it melted where's that at?

ow do you know its not there? were you there? did you clean up? NO you just hear a conspiracy with some misconstrued information and follow blindly, you sir are the sheep.

Would vaporize them ?but would not even scratch the windows where the wings would have impacted? There was a plane because of eye witnesses, but a plane did not impact that wall, the window glass and wall is perfectly intact where the wings of 757 would have hit the building.This one of the most undeniable evidences of that day.

no the windows were clearly smashed, on top of that you can see a white line outlining where the wings hit in the pictures.

I've been on a tour in the Pentagon, and they have blast resistant windows. The tour guide claimed that the glass is much stronger than the concrete around it, and when rebuilding, they were able to reuse most of them because they were displaced but not broken.

But if one chooses to believe that Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, then what is the next rational question? And the next, and the next..? If this is true then the reality as we know it, has nothing to do with the reality that actually occurs. I always end up in a limbo between accepting the reality which is presented to us and not believing anything i hear or see on tv, which makes me either naive or paranoid.

http://dprogram.net/2013/01/23/film-war-by-deception-2013/

Watch the entire film and tell me if you still think no plane hit the Pentagon.

The "no plane" theory is so filled with disinformation it is pathetic.

I think they have video of it. Keeping it in case many people started to question the events. Then they could release the video and it would discredit any other conspiracy ideas about it.

Ummm, people have been questioning the events since the event

I mean if a majority of people did. Most people do not question it at all. If it ever got to the point where most people thought there was something else, they could release the video and it would discredit any conspiracy.

[deleted]

Its the hook to discredit conspiracy theorists. Lets say (just making up numbers) 20% think there was some sort of conspiracy. As of right now the other 80% could care less about the video they believe the official story. Now lets say years pass and now 80% believe in the conspiracy and demand to see the video, reasoning that the fact that it has not been fully released is suspicious. Now the government can release the full video of a plane hitting the Pentagon and in doing so make many believe the official story again and making conspiracy theorists look foolish by proving them wrong on that one case, they could make people believe that the whole conspiracy case was false. So basically it is a setup fail safe in case they need it, otherwise we will never see the full video.

[deleted]

Not enough people care about it yet. If it ever gets to 80% or whatever and they released it, the numbers would probably drop dramatically that believed something else happened. It is a classic tactic. I forget the actual term for it but it is basically like bait on a hook. Once enough people take the bait they are reeled in.

Perhaps you are correct.

Incorrect. How can you deny all the eye-witneses? It's just silly....

Yes it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&list=FLSiPEOBU83ATf5dqaUle1Aw&index=202

You posted animated computer graphics? Shill.

You're crazy, Of course a 757 doing 600 mph could do a corkscrew turn and come completely level with the ground and disappear into the pentagon leaving little to no evidence of an actual plane anywhere. Dang conspiracy theorists and their logical questions about information that should be public knowledge.

Edit: Obvious sarcasm is obvious.

You can't handle the truth that your government is engaging in false-flag operations and using the media to sway public opinion to fit the government's agenda. It's a win-win scenario for the government and a lose-lose situation for the people. Ultimatum terms like "patriotic" and "terrorist" are so successful that they even have the citizens playing the role of the guards on public thought.

You're just running around with this huge truth hammer hitting all these nail heads like a boss. Like Einstein said nationalism is a plague on mankind. I listen to Imagine like once a day cause I'm a tree hugging hippie at heart, Those lyrics should be spammed to every government agency all over the world. Just a pipe dream of a song that will never come true due to the human syndrome of greed. Before anyone else can say it, My grammar sucks, I talk like a fag and my shits all fucked up, Oh and I'm stupid.

There is footage, but it was confiscated by some government agency.

The only footage shows one or two frames of what might be a plane.

[deleted]

Which was released in 2006...

I remember watching a YouTube vid of a bunch of people giving eye whiteness testimony (including a cop) that they saw they plane on a way different course from what the official story was saying. I wish I had the link.

I think you're looking for 'The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Edition' (2007). The idea is that there was a plane present but it flew just over the Pentagon while something else caused the explosion. Indeed two cops (among others) are giving quite clear testimonies about when and where they saw the plane come over while at a gasstation across from the Pentagon. It also touches on possible false evidence and staged foto-ops. Quite an interesting doc.

Official website: http://thepentacon.com/

Youtube full doc: The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version

Edit; release date

I've seen what you're referring to. It's not PentaCon though...something else..

I think you're referring to "National Security Alert - 911 Pentagon" by Citizens Investigation Team. You can access it here.

http://www.nwo3.com/index.php/9-11-pentagon.html

Or here

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

If it showed a plane hitting the building, you'd be watching it right now.

Since you are not, and they have all the videos from around the Pentagon and refuse to release them.......they would obviously NOT show a plane.

YOu know they just happened to do a rennovation of that exact side of the Pentagon to protect it from bomb blasts etc? Just that one side.

Don't let people tell you it was a global hawk or something like that. There were people who saw the plane and describe where it went. It was a plane, but it wasn't there to "hit" the building.

I get all of this from CIT and their research. They are due all credit.

WHat videos?

All the footage has been released. Every camera that truthers say that had footage has been released...

since 2006...

The fisheye cameras are all the cameras the PENTAGON can produce from the incident? The Pentagon has no other cameras which could have got a better shot? Not one?

Not all the footage has been released. Don't make me google anything for you.

please do, the thing is I probably could guess^85tapes exactly what you will come up with and you'd still be wrong.

I'm sorry, the military centre for the USA and the only security cameras they have available.......are at the gate to their parking lot.

You're a fucking moron. REAL people will do the search and find it. Fucking idiots and bots post stupid comments.

Why is that is hard to believe? The building was built in the 1940s. Guess what? It isn't like the movies. It is just an office building. It isn't some ultra modern space age control room with 2000 inch monitors like the movies have led you to believe. You are far more likely to be surrounded by puke green carpet that hasn't been updated since the 70s.

The number one reason why it didn't need a huge camera system is because there is a full time army in and around it. An army is really good at stopping things like car bombs and random lone nuts with guns. It is really bad at stopping planes. The Pentagon has a lot of people around it. They can afford it. Your local walmart has a lot of cameras because they don't want to pay a lot of people.

Every camera that truthers have pointed out has had their footage released.

I mean compare it to the first plane strike in New York. How many videos of that exist? TWO. The largest city in America and there was only two videos. (There was also a webcam that took photos of the skyline that captured it too)

There just isn't a whole lot of reason to point a camera at the sky on a boring tuesday afternoon.

Anyway, why do you discount the over 75 eywitnesses reported in the media as seeing a large plane? There was only 75 reported in the media, far more people witnessed the event then actually got a write up. How many of those people reported seeing a missile? None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

Get this torrent

The story is they were all turned off.

There is no good enough argument why the FBI would confiscate tapes from surrounding business's and keep them a national secret. Release the tapes after the investigation or include them and it would quell distrust. When there is little transparency you expect questions to arise, and they are legitimate questions.

What is the rationale behind flying planes into WTC but not flying a plane into the Pentagon? I assume difficulty in hitting a target on the ground?

Even if clear footage existed, they would still claim it's either doctored/faked or that a bomb exploded in the Pentagon anyway. You cannot reason with these people.

Any footage/evidence that proved the official story true would've long been in the public domain. It would be an easy way to shut all of "these conspiracy people" up in one fell swoop. So where is it? Wouldn't the Pentagon of all places be covered in surveillance equipment?

Even if the official version is 100% true, they've lost all credibility because of how they handled it. (Lying about WMD's, torture, etc.) Using one single event to wage war with a country that had NOTHING to do with it (Iraq) is as shady as it gets. You'd have to be crazy not to question things.

Why should any footage exist in the first place?

Because it happened at the Pentagon, which is a highly-secure government building in a heavily populated city. Every stop light has a surveillance camera, why not the Pentagon? There was crystal-clear footage of the planes hitting the towers, right?

So you are basing this just on an assumption?

It's an assumption that could easily be proven. The layout of the Pentagon is very precise; security is tight. Someone--probably more than one person--knows how many cameras there were and exactly where they were placed. Unless they were broken, there would be footage of a plane hitting the building. It's a fucking plane flying at ground level and smashing into our country's military headquarters. That something so unreal would happen at all is unlikely enough; that none of it was captured on camera is crazy talk.

Even assuming there were NO security cams at the Pentagon (there were), it's likely that someone would've captured a picture or video of a plane at the site. (That's an assumption).

Then tell me which cameras exactly should have captured the plane.

Or are you just assuming that these cameras exist?

You're right: total assumption on my part. How silly of me to assume that security cameras would be in place at the nerve center of our nation's military. It's only one of the biggest targets for terrorist attacks in the Western Hemisphere.

You are making two assumptions:

1. There were lots of cameras.

2. Those cameras should have recorded the plane.

Now, can you back up any of these assumptions with data or can you not?

Yes or No are sufficient as answer.

Can you back up the assertion that there weren't?

I'm guessing you're not fully aware of the Big Brother state we live in. As we speak, the largest data center in the history of the world is being constructed in the Utah desert. It has one purpose: to decrypt and interpret the electronic communications of every citizen in every country, including the U.S. Police are flying drone helicopters to spy on people in their own backyards; surveillance cams are on every corner and at every stop light. Do you honestly believe there were no working cameras at the nation's military headquarters on 9/11?

If there weren't, it would be the biggest security fail in the last 100 years.

Can you back up the assertion that there weren't?

You made a claim. You back it up.

So the answer to my questions is "no", right?

Also, surrounded by antiaircraft missiles.

Ah, yes. THAT.

Source?

This is my opinion and I should have stated that since there is no solid evidence to back it up.

Just my two cents, because I know everyone was wondering what I thought. I used to really harp on the plane/pentagon mystery but have recently come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. Either a plane hit, and they let it. Or they made it look like a plane hit and blew it up some other way.

All you really need to put two and two together is that there is something fishy going on when a freaking plane hits the most secure building in the world on a day when we should be on high alert because of the planes in New York.

Either way, missile, plane, bomb - to quote Jay Sherman - "It Stinks!"

I have been wondering about the security footage as well. I am unsure about the frame rate at which it was recording, however my guess is 1 fps. According to official reports the plane was traveling at 530 mph when it struck the Pentagon. This comes out to 777 feet per second. The plane is 155 feet long so theoretically we might not see it pass through the frame. But I would like to think that something so massive would cause some motion blur in the image, or as it encounters resistance it would slow down and we'd then perhaps see the tail of the plane going in to the Pentagon. Anyone have thoughts on this?

They have purposefully withheld clear video evidence in order to shift the 'conspiratorial' focus from the obvious to the obscure. The no-planes theory is pure disinformation. Scores of eye witnesses saw a plane crash into the pentagon and the towers.

http://s50.radikal.ru/i129/1005/4e/5b88bc34f89e.jpg

http://s60.radikal.ru/i169/1003/f7/5dbc426c4403.gif

You're welcome.

I would like to see your pics, but I am careful about going to websites that I am unfamiliar with. Could you repost them on imgur?

I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, but your second link has been debunked in the past. A reverse image from a helicopter fly-over on a normal day. Can't find the original footage at the moment, but figured you should know. I'm stating that I believe 9/11 was complete inside job and Pentagon was hit with a missile, but that gif/video is falsified.

[deleted]

Go away.

http://imgur.com/a/z1xeV

and just for fun 75+ people who saw a plane

the hole is going to be smaller as the only part the breaks thought would be near the center, you really thing that a plane hitting steel reinforced concrete would make a perfect hole to fly through?

Invoke fear into the public and give the government the reason to go to war.