The argument from conspiracy theorists was that it looked completely fabricated, there was footage of the pentagon almost immediately afterwards, claims were:

1.The hole that was made in the pentagon was far too small and not indicative of what a passenger airliner would have left/done had that been what hit the pentagon.

1. There was no wreckage/bodies: Asides from an almost completely intact jet engine. So the entire rest of the passenger jet vaporised on impact, not to mention the bodies of all the 'passengers' on board? Nothing but an engine is seen in the footage.

2. The part of the pentagon that was struck was the only section that had been reinforced against impact. Conspiracy theorists claim that this 'coincidence' surmounts to the fact that it was deliberately chosen as the location for the strike in order to mitigate damage to the structure and casualties.

Edit: People died, I said they hadn't

you might want to edit the uninhabited part

The part of the pentagon that was struck was the only section that was completely uninhabited at the time: Due to Construction/Renovations the area that was hit was void of human life when it was struck, resulting in no casualties from within the pentagon,

What? "A total of 125 victims were killed in the Pentagon, most of them who worked for the United States Army or the United States Navy. Of the 125 victims, 70 were civilians, including 47 Army employees, six Army contractors, six Navy employees, three Navy contractors, seven Defense Intelligence Agency employees, and one Office of the Secretary of Defense contractor; and 55 were members of the U.S. military, including 33 Navy sailors and 22 Army soldiers" Source

Yeah, I have family that knows people who were in the part that was being renovated and died, so yeah....people were there, it wasn't barren.

It was the only extra reinforced against missle attack section.

Wikipedia as a source. They also say WTC7 collapsed due to office fire.

You know that wikipedia cites external sources, right?

Yes. Sources that back the official lie.

The argument from conspiracy theorists was that it looked completely fabricated

not to mention it would have been factually/simply impossible for ANYONE to fly/maneuver a 757 into the Pentagon as described. (i.e., Flying a 757 so low at such speeds -- the plane would have stalled and crashed into the ground before it even hit the Pentagon).

What evidence is there that a missile hit the Pentagon?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2uuc83/here_are_rare_photos_of_the_pentagon_after_the/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_90.htm

http://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/35e48y/what_happened_to_the_plane_that_was_supposed_to/

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2gat9q/pentagon_survivor_none_of_us_saw_the_plane/

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/30x4w9/i_can_prove_that_it_was_not_an_airplane_that_hit/

PS. Don't forget about Shanksville! ;)

Ahh you again.

I'l play your game anyways.

1. At least 85 videos in government possession that were confiscated have not be released despite multiple FOIA requests. Only an edited video showing a few frames of an indistinguishable object hitting the pentagon is shown to the public. If the government were telling the truth, why not release as many videos as you can to put all the naysayers to rest and make your position/case stronger? And don't say political or burecratic reasons, everyone remotely tied to the official story wants to make the "terrists did it" story as solid as possible.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

1. The cab driver in the famous photo showing knocked down light poles (which by the way, don't coincide with flight path models the jet would have had to have taken, and are most likely staged) has a significantly different story when he doesn't realize he's being recorded. He practically admits it's a conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho

1. A decent list here (connecting the dots):

Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off?
DOT The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts.
DOT AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”
DOT No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon.
DOT CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
DOT Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact. DOT Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon.
DOT Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked.
DOT A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon.
DOT Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”
DOT Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon. Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT

Source:

http://consciouslifenews.com/911-prove-airplane-hit-pentagon-major-general-albert-stubblebine/1145271/

Those are the most damning pieces. You might be able to explain away a few of these, but some such as the cab driver and the vaporization of the plane can't be written off.

I've heard numerous numbers on how many surveillance videos were confiscated, they're all above 70, so I just say 70+. Three were released, none show a plane.

That the most highly guarded airspace in the world was attacked without any signs of defense over an hour into a terrorist attack and there are no videos of it, should be enough for most people.

You would think, but most people are so dumb/gullible, and simultaneously don't want to hear that the government is lying to them because of the implications, that they would rather stick their heads into the sand.

Or side with the overwhelming evidence that it was a terrorist attack...

DOT No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon.

You mean, like the one on a commercial airliner? Because as this picture shows planes can get pretty damn close to the Pentagon, on their way to land at Washington Airport. Your "50 miles" claim is clearly nonsense.

There's a lot of other factual inaccuracies in your piece e.g. "A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon," and absolutely no mention of the many eye-witnesses who reported with certainty that they saw a plane, and not a missile, hitting the building.

I was copy pasting from a larger list of an even greater resource of what that link is. If the best you can do is claim that some eyewitnesses saw a plane while others saw something else, and claim that 50 miles is exaggerated, this is going to be an easy win...

1. Even if the 50 miles claim is exaggerated, the point is the same. No response from the pentagon AA batteries. Intentional stand down order from cheney etc.

2. Eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, especially in an event like this.

Does your average eyewitness in an event like this know how to differentiate between a plane and a cruise missile when it's going 800kph?

Not to mention, multiple witnesses claimed it wasn't a plane, so in the face of conflicting reports either way, we can set this claim to neutral regardless, and look at other ones.

I'l repeat a few key ones.

1. Intentional stand down order from Cheney.
2. Impossible to nearly impossible flight maneuvers for amateur pilots.
3. Cab driver basically admits the government story is false, and he was playing a role intentionally.
4. Intentional confiscation and subsequent refusal to release crucial data that would substantiate or refute the government story(video).
5. Totally inconsistent impact, wings/bodies completely disappear. Compare that to every large plane crash in history.

If the best you can do is claim that some eyewitnesses saw a plane while others saw something else, and claim that 50 miles is exaggerated, this is going to be an easy win...

Actually, the vast majority of independent witnesses clearly state it was a plane. Very few specify a missile [note: not saying it flew "like a missile", saying it WAS a missile]. If you're going to claim a missile, you need to explain this.

Also, tell me more about the Pentagon AA batteries. Let's have the evidence for them, please.

Does your average eyewitness in an event like this know how to differentiate between a plane and a cruise missile when it's going 800kph?

I think your average eyewitness knows what a plane looks like, and it's very silly to suggest otherwise.

To go over your "key items"

Intentional stand down order from Cheney.

Cheney wasn't in charge of NORAD on 9/11, and so had no authority to give any such order.

Impossible to nearly impossible flight maneuvers for amateur pilots.

Opinion, not fact. And not everyone agrees: "Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was." That's from a pilot who flies 757 and 767 for a living.

Cab driver basically admits the government story is false, and he was playing a role intentionally.

[Sigh] A cab driver tells a story. S'funny. Eye-witnesses are totally ignored when what they report doesn't tie in with your theory, but find one who might support it, and suddenly, it's a "key" fact.

Intentional confiscation and subsequent refusal to release crucial data that would substantiate or refute the government story(video).

Not evidence, in any shape or size for a missile.

Totally inconsistent impact, wings/bodies completely disappear. Compare that to every large plane crash in history.

Find me other plane crashes where a plane was deliberately flown, as fast as possible, into one of the biggest buildings by floor space in the world. Then we'll see whether this is consistent or not.

Actually, the vast majority of independent witnesses clearly state it was a plane. Very few specify a missile [note: not saying it flew "like a missile", saying it WAS a missile]. If you're going to claim a missile, you need to explain this.

I'm not sure if MOST is the word you are looking for considering the majority of testimony on the site you linked to was people hearing the explosion, not seeing anything. Independent documentaries that have interviewed people show conflicting reports on the subject.

Many of your eyewitnesses that see a plane fly over them are actually seeing a second plane, not the (object) that hit the pentagon.

Cheney wasn't in charge of NORAD on 9/11, and so had no authority to give any such order.

No one is talking about Norad. He gave a stand down order from the white house bunker.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html

[Sigh] A cab driver tells a story. S'funny. Eye-witnesses are totally ignored when what they report doesn't tie in with your theory, but find one who might support it, and suddenly, it's a "key" fact.

The guy admitted to a setup. He's not just an eyewitness, if anything he's the most important eyewitness because he was a crucial part of the whole charade. Did you even watch the video?

Opinion, not fact. And not everyone agrees: "Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was." That's from a pilot who flies 757 and 767 for a living.

One pilot. Compared to pilots for 9/11 truth who basically prove that his flight path was impossible. Combine that with the cab drivers testimony stating it was a conspiracy...

Not evidence, in any shape or size for a missile.

No, they confiscated all this video, but refuse to release it. If it was a plane why not release it? You valiant defenders of the government story can NEVER explain this properly. "national security reasons". Lol.

I never claimed a missile hit the pentagon. How about you prove a plane hit the pentagon? All we have is conflicting eyewitness reports, no footage, and damage that is inconsistent with a plane crash.

Find me other plane crashes where a plane was deliberately flown, as fast as possible, into one of the biggest buildings by floor space in the world. Then we'll see whether this is consistent or not.

Intent and location and target do NOT matter when it comes to debris that should be left behind. All that matters is mass and velocity. Plenty of planes have crashed over the decades as large or larger than the one that was supposedly flown into the pentagon on 9/11. Not a single one left behind so little debris, and not one body.

Every plane crash in history (other than those that hit the ocean) leaves behind bodies, except for the pentagon, it must have some special shield or something that vaporizes organic matter on contact.

Seriously, intent, and target literally mean nothing when it comes to what should be left behind. The only thing that matter is size of the aircraft, and speed, both of which are completely comparable to any other aircraft in history.

The damage on the pentagon is totally inconsistent with what a plane should do as well, not to mention the missing parts.

Seriously, intent, and target literally mean nothing when it comes to what should be left behind.

"Intent and target mean nothing"? Really? So if you deliberately plow a car head-on into an overpass, the resulting damage will be the same as if you accidentally sideswipe a crash barrier?

There's absolutely no point discussing this further with you.

So if you deliberately plow a car head-on into an overpass, the resulting damage will be the same as if you accidentally sideswipe a crash barrier?

How can you even take yourself seriously with these strawman arguments? You know exactly what I mean, organic matter doesn't just disappear because a plane hits a building instead of a field or an ocean.

Not to mention, it's pointless arguing alone these lines anyways because the flight maneuvers supposedly taken by the pilots were quite impossible and the cab driver admits to a setup.

organic matter doesn't just disappear because a plane hits a building instead of a field or an ocean.

Except, that certainly didn't happen as you alleged: all but five victims were identified from the remains. Any more factually incorrect claims you'd like to make?

Your other two arguments are respectively 1) unproven, since I've already shown you a pilot saying they were perfectly possible, and 2) pure speculation, which at the very worst, shows a witness exaggerating his own role (and that would certainly be in line with England's subsequent delusional statements). If that's the "best evidence" you've got, it's feeble.

Except, that certainly didn't happen as you alleged: all but five victims were identified from the remains. Any more factually incorrect claims you'd like to make?

Having DNA remains at the site, and having bodies are two completely different things. Not a single body near the lawn (not talking about bodies in the pentagon) indicates that it was likely not a plane that hit the pentagon. Most people's DNA is not on record, so identifying victims through DNA when you have no prior match is ridiculous. It's not as if family members sent in hair or skin samples to be matched. Basically the government is saying "take our word for it".

unproven, since I've already shown you a pilot saying they were perfectly possible,

Nah, one pilot vs. a whole organization. I can find one scientist that claims the earth is flat, that doesn't magically dissipate a claim.

pure speculation

It's not speculation, he admits to a setup when he thinks he's off camera. You're kinda grasping at straws to explain that one away.

Still no explanation for the government refusing to release over 75+ recordings nearby the pentagon that day.

Having DNA remains at the site, and having bodies are two completely different things.

Whoops. You're backtracking so fast from your previous claim "organic matter doesn't just disappear" you're becoming a blur.

Not a single body near the lawn (not talking about bodies in the pentagon) indicates that it was likely not a plane that hit the pentagon.

Don't know much about Newton's Laws of Motion, do you? So when you're flung at hundreds of miles an hour into a building, you're going to bounce backwards?

Most people's DNA is not on record, so identifying victims through DNA when you have no prior match is ridiculous. It's not as if family members sent in hair or skin samples to be matched.

Two-thirds of the victims were military personnel, who will certainly have previously had blood samples drawn and analyzed. Asking family members of those on the passenger manifest to provide samples would be perfectly normal.

Basically the government is saying "take our word for it".

The government...and all the families of every single one of the victims, and everyone who knows them. Thousands upon thousands of people! They all must be in on it too!

I can find one scientist that claims the earth is flat, that doesn't magically dissipate a claim.

So on this basis, you also write off the small minority of engineers who think WTC 7 was a demolitions job as well. Glad we got that put to rest. But yet another claim, that the maneuvers "were quite impossible", is destroyed. Some pilots say that. Others disagree.

So, now all you've got left as "evidence" is one loony cab-driver. Good effort!

Do you need video evidence that the titanic hit an iceberg?

Retired General Albert Stubblebine says he cant find a Boeing 757 in the Pentagon

http://youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

Inb4: Albert Stubblebine thinks he can walk through walls

You don't have to stick an active warhead in a missile, they even use concrete as payload.

I'm not saying this is the case for 9/11 pentagon, it was more of a general comment.

yeah same for me it looks like a fuel explosion but there is a smaller plane theory too

bottomline we do not know what hit it and the video has been edited or seized

Step 1: Go watch 9/11: In Plane Sight

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Profit

the frames of video released to the public have been proved to be airbrushed with a white smudge the smoke trail is white consistent with a missile more than a plane and the entry and exit wounds appear too small

I haven't heard this one before, can you link?

i dont have a bookmark to hand try a search engine other than google and enter

pentagon traffic cam frames photoshop / airbrush

that should turn it up

or watch the relevant part of the docu 911 pearl harbour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Look at a photo of the external damage to the Pentagon, taken soon after impact and before the floors above collapsed. Now imagine a full-sized airliner hitting that wall at 300 mph and ask yourself "Where did the engines go?".

There are videos available online that show it was a missile and not a plane. There was also only a fifteen foot wide hole in the building at impact, no way an airliner crashes into a building and folds itself through a fifteen foot hole.

There are videos available online that show it was a missile and not a plane.

Ive only ever seen one fake. Can you link to the real ones please.

https://youtu.be/5cFewUG3rSY There's one

Whatever it was only made a fifteen foot wide hole, definitely not a sixty foot wide airliner.

Actually the angle it supposedly took was impossible, too low, there's interesting information on that from Pilots for 911 truth. The pole was staged interview with cab driver also available. The only engine found was on the front lawn not inside the building. Your still ignoring the fifteen foot hole, no airliner makes that, only a missile.

https://youtu.be/5cFewUG3rSY A picture of inside the hole no plane parts.

Oh my god! Someone actually interested in the truth, thank you for you open mind. Do more research on your own you will find huge amounts of information, I recommend Architects and engineers for 911 truth and Pilots for 911 truth, they have some great information.

close .. popular mechanics said that the plane 'turned into a sort of plasma ball ... and melted what amounts to a tunnel through the columns and finally penetrating through to E .. making that nice, small, circular hole in the outer wall'

Plasma :/

So if you believe that a plane hit the pentagon then you also have to believe that a plane turned into a plasma ball. Of course you also have to believe that a huge jetliner got swallowed up by the earth in shanksville.

Actually most airliner bodies are between 10 - 20 feet in diameter. Assuming the wings either fell off/folded in/exploded/whatever, the hole makes sense.

They didn't just fall off, your logic is nonsensical, the videos inside the hole show no airplane parts. Next question?

So are you trying to tell me that you expect aluminum airplane wings, the most thin part of an aircraft, to penetrate six inch thick limestone walls without falling off or folding inwards towards the body?

Also, please show me the videos of inside the pentagon that you're referencing.

A piece of foam at high speed put a hole in the shuttle, your argument doesn't hold water.

Actually it just dented it and damaged the thermal protection. It didn't "put a hole" in it.

Also they're completely different materials.

Not dented broke off parts. Its also foam which is not as dense as aluminum or you.

The foam is the part that broke off, which resulted in the dent as it fell onto the wing. The broken off parts hitting the wing did not break off more parts until the shuttle itself exploded.

Wow, let's just vere of into an entirely different conversation. OK there's a video of the test for that scenario and it shows the foam going through a plane hull. Even the scientists couldn't believe it, but it was all based on basic science calculations the engineers did when the observed the foam impact. Still besides the point, 120 wing span doesn't fold into a fifteen foot hole, its never happened.Just like three buildings collapsing on there own imprint without explosives, it's never happened.

OK there's a video of the test

That's great. That's also not the same thing as the actual incident. It hit the wing, dented/damaged/scraped/what have you it, this in turn screwed up the thermal protection which is why it went up in flames upon re-enry.

Still besides the point, 120 wing span doesn't fold into a fifteen foot hole, its never happened.Just like three buildings collapsing on there own imprint without explosives, it's never happened.

See, I don't get this argument. Just because it's never happened before means it can't be possible?

Its both against basic physics and has never happened. That's like saying a human can jump to the top of the empire state building , just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. If your actually interested Architects and engineers has all the physics and engineering about this. Also Pilots for 911 truth takes about this too. I'm gonna go with the experts on thus one.

Architects and engineers

Experts

You do understand that the AE for 9/11 group is made up of less than half a percentage of all certified architects and engineers in the nation right? Arguably that means that the majority of experts reject alternate 9/11 theories.

Also

just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

That's exactly what what I just said! Although I'm sure you meant to type something else since your grammar skills seem nebulous at best right now.

My grammar was correct and in since you didn't seem to get it I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument. On AE911 where would you get that percentage? Just because they are not part of AE911 doesn't mean they disagree. Where's the group if architects who believe the NIST report , they don't have a group. AE911 held an open debate on the physics of 911, not one person from the other side showed up, where are your supporters?

If your actually

on thus one.

Yes, your grammar is stellar.

On AE911 where would you get that percentage?

By comparing the member count of AE911 with the amount of practicing architects and engineers in the US.

Where's the group if architects who believe the NIST report , they don't have a group

Probably because they don't need a group. They don't have to throw around what they believe because most people already believe it.

AE911 held an open debate on the physics of 911, not one person from the other side showed up, where are your supporters?

Moved on most likely. (I'd also argue that people don't take AE911 too seriously anyways and just kind of disregarded it.) 9/11 was almost 14 years ago. The lines in the sand are drawn, you either believe the official story or you don't. Most people on the official story line just don't bother anymore. It's why you don't see heated debates on JFK or the Illuminati or anything. It's been around for ages and the only people you see arguing about it are those that adhere to alternate theories and bored people on forums.

Yeah E Howard Hunts death bed confession ends the JFK controversy. No one debated AE911 because they would lose badly.

https://youtu.be/5cFewUG3rSY There's one picture, were is the plane parts?

http://i.imgur.com/AarAqzd.png

Are you referring to this image taken from the video? I can't see any plane parts, but then again I can't see more than three feet into the building.

Your distance gage is not very good that's at least 75 feet into the building.

How is that 75 feet? Where did you get that measurement from? The lack of lighting makes it nearly impossible to tell how deep it goes. Hence why I said "three feet" since that's about as far as the light goes.

The SNES graphics don't really make it easier either.

Assuming the wings either fell off/folded in/exploded/whatever,

Radical assumption. And there were no bodies on the lawn, assuming the passengers jumped out of the windows before the plane got to the Pentagon. And they threw all the seats and luggage out too. And removed the landing gear and one of the engines. And all of the aluminum body, as well as the wiring.

It was 125' wide, and over 1/2 a football field long.

Your correct it has a 120 foot wingspan, I wasn't accurate but the points the same. Working off the top of my head, I looked up the actual wingspan myself after I posted it.

Dude come oon. Thats the fake we've already seen. You posted that as a joke right?

Fake based on what. The government released video doesn't even show a plane, the one taken from the entrance gate.

Dude. Seriously? Come on. Im not talking about the governemt. In talking about your video. Your disinformation isnt helping anything.

Again proof it's fake? It's not even my real argument its just an example. The fifteen foot hole is proof it wasn't a 757.

Again proof it's fake? It's not even my real argument its just an example

An example of what? That videos been debunked every time its posted. And debunked by other truthers even.

It's not even my real argument

Back peddling.

Take your disinfo away shill.

You still haven't shown me proof it's fake. Just so you know shills don't say the government did it, they're paid to say the government didn't do it moron.

shills are paid by someone to say anything to someones advantage. Moron. not exclusive to government.
You know how many shills here work for the corporations? or pro-cannabis lobby? or Naturalnews.com? 911blogger.com? Ae911truth? Etc etc etc.

come on open your eyes. The worst on here are the pro government/pro obama ones sure.
You think Monsantos competitors aren't on here, paying shills to undermine the competition? Shills work on all sides. government and 'other'. shills are used by everyone. You work for someone, thats why you cant admit the video is fake.
I'd bet that 90% of posters on /r/conspiracy are doing it to get paid.

Your video is fake if you cannot admit to that, you're being paid not to. I'm not going to waste time on a shill like you explaining why mickey mouse isnt a documentary. Jesus it doesnt even hit the same place as whatever actually did hit the pentagon.

If you want the best evidence for 911truth you only have to look at this irrefutable analysis

That hole is from the inner ring. Not, where the plane supposedly hit, but where it supposedly exited.

Your wrong that's the impact hole there was no exit hole.

There were three exit holes, spaced some distance apart. The CIA has stated on record that none of the 70+ videos that they confiscated from cameras in the area show a plane hitting the building, and they still refuse to release nearly all of them.

The ones they have released don't show a plane.

Do you have a link for the exit holes? I'm interested.

Scroll halfway down:

http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer05.html

Thanks.

Exit hole: http://skypotrol.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pentagon_impact-hole.jpg

Compare to video at 52 seconds.

But don't get me wrong. I question whether a plane hit the pentagon. But i've seen a ton of documentaries and photos to know the difference between the impact hole and the exit hole.

But as you can see, the exit hole makes no sense.

I was looking at the wrong picture that's obviously an exit hole the debris is on the outside.

When was anything ever recorded in 240p... it's literally unwatchable.

Anything good was confiscated. The good government doesn't show a plane.

I don't mean to criticize, it's just that, like, really?

I've seen videos of bigfoot that were more defined and clear than that.

That's because all the good video from the gas station and buildings across the street were confiscated and never saw the light of day. Show me a video of a plane hitting it.

That isn't how the burden of proof works. You are defending the stance that a missile hit the pentagon, so defend it.

You are defending the stance that it was a plane, you prove it. I've provided you with proof you ignore saying its grainy. You don't address the fact that the hole made was fifteen feet wide, not close to big enough for an airliner impact of a sixty foot wide plane.

It was grainy to the point where I couldn't even make out the pentagon. That's not proof.

You still haven't shown any proof it was a plane.

I'm not trying to convince you of it. I'm just hear to read about missile theories and point out bits I find questionable. You're the one that's calling for me to defend the plane spiel even though I don't really care for arguing about it.

Your just trying to poke holes in someone else's research without doing any yourself or being man enough to defend a position.

Or I really just don't care that much to argue with people on a conspiracy forum.

You came here, too much logic for you?

Yes, you've caught me. I'm utterly bamboozled by your logical arguments such as comparing the Colombia shuttle to the pentagon and a plane. I've been forced into a corner and can only retort by pretending not to care. Oh woe is me.

Glad I could educate you. Come back when you've discovered logic I realize it could take you a while.

Yes my liege.

There are videos available online that show it was a missile and not a plane.

Ive only ever seen one fake. Can you link to the real ones please.

Whatever it was only made a fifteen foot wide hole, definitely not a sixty foot wide airliner.

The part of the pentagon that was struck was the only section that was completely uninhabited at the time: Due to Construction/Renovations the area that was hit was void of human life when it was struck, resulting in no casualties from within the pentagon,

What? "A total of 125 victims were killed in the Pentagon, most of them who worked for the United States Army or the United States Navy. Of the 125 victims, 70 were civilians, including 47 Army employees, six Army contractors, six Navy employees, three Navy contractors, seven Defense Intelligence Agency employees, and one Office of the Secretary of Defense contractor; and 55 were members of the U.S. military, including 33 Navy sailors and 22 Army soldiers" Source

How is that 75 feet? Where did you get that measurement from? The lack of lighting makes it nearly impossible to tell how deep it goes. Hence why I said "three feet" since that's about as far as the light goes.

The SNES graphics don't really make it easier either.

Yes, you've caught me. I'm utterly bamboozled by your logical arguments such as comparing the Colombia shuttle to the pentagon and a plane. I've been forced into a corner and can only retort by pretending not to care. Oh woe is me.

Glad I could educate you. Come back when you've discovered logic I realize it could take you a while.

Do you have a link for the exit holes? I'm interested.

you might want to edit the uninhabited part

The argument from conspiracy theorists was that it looked completely fabricated

not to mention it would have been factually/simply impossible for ANYONE to fly/maneuver a 757 into the Pentagon as described. (i.e., Flying a 757 so low at such speeds -- the plane would have stalled and crashed into the ground before it even hit the Pentagon).

What evidence is there that a missile hit the Pentagon?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2uuc83/here_are_rare_photos_of_the_pentagon_after_the/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_90.htm

http://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/35e48y/what_happened_to_the_plane_that_was_supposed_to/

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2gat9q/pentagon_survivor_none_of_us_saw_the_plane/

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/30x4w9/i_can_prove_that_it_was_not_an_airplane_that_hit/

PS. Don't forget about Shanksville! ;)

Actually, the vast majority of independent witnesses clearly state it was a plane. Very few specify a missile [note: not saying it flew "like a missile", saying it WAS a missile]. If you're going to claim a missile, you need to explain this.

I'm not sure if MOST is the word you are looking for considering the majority of testimony on the site you linked to was people hearing the explosion, not seeing anything. Independent documentaries that have interviewed people show conflicting reports on the subject.

Many of your eyewitnesses that see a plane fly over them are actually seeing a second plane, not the (object) that hit the pentagon.

Cheney wasn't in charge of NORAD on 9/11, and so had no authority to give any such order.

No one is talking about Norad. He gave a stand down order from the white house bunker.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html

[Sigh] A cab driver tells a story. S'funny. Eye-witnesses are totally ignored when what they report doesn't tie in with your theory, but find one who might support it, and suddenly, it's a "key" fact.

The guy admitted to a setup. He's not just an eyewitness, if anything he's the most important eyewitness because he was a crucial part of the whole charade. Did you even watch the video?

Opinion, not fact. And not everyone agrees: "Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was." That's from a pilot who flies 757 and 767 for a living.

One pilot. Compared to pilots for 9/11 truth who basically prove that his flight path was impossible. Combine that with the cab drivers testimony stating it was a conspiracy...

Not evidence, in any shape or size for a missile.

No, they confiscated all this video, but refuse to release it. If it was a plane why not release it? You valiant defenders of the government story can NEVER explain this properly. "national security reasons". Lol.

I never claimed a missile hit the pentagon. How about you prove a plane hit the pentagon? All we have is conflicting eyewitness reports, no footage, and damage that is inconsistent with a plane crash.

Find me other plane crashes where a plane was deliberately flown, as fast as possible, into one of the biggest buildings by floor space in the world. Then we'll see whether this is consistent or not.

Intent and location and target do NOT matter when it comes to debris that should be left behind. All that matters is mass and velocity. Plenty of planes have crashed over the decades as large or larger than the one that was supposedly flown into the pentagon on 9/11. Not a single one left behind so little debris, and not one body.

Every plane crash in history (other than those that hit the ocean) leaves behind bodies, except for the pentagon, it must have some special shield or something that vaporizes organic matter on contact.

Seriously, intent, and target literally mean nothing when it comes to what should be left behind. The only thing that matter is size of the aircraft, and speed, both of which are completely comparable to any other aircraft in history.

The damage on the pentagon is totally inconsistent with what a plane should do as well, not to mention the missing parts.

organic matter doesn't just disappear because a plane hits a building instead of a field or an ocean.

Except, that certainly didn't happen as you alleged: all but five victims were identified from the remains. Any more factually incorrect claims you'd like to make?

Your other two arguments are respectively 1) unproven, since I've already shown you a pilot saying they were perfectly possible, and 2) pure speculation, which at the very worst, shows a witness exaggerating his own role (and that would certainly be in line with England's subsequent delusional statements). If that's the "best evidence" you've got, it's feeble.