39 out of 40 employees working in the Office of Naval Intelligence were killed. They are the department that was investigating the missing money. I believe that in addition to your theory, pre-planted explosives inside the building were also responsible.

Do you have a link or source that states that they were the department working on locating the money? i would like to see it i think it would be interesting. I would like to post it on my site.

thanks

Just Google department of Naval Intelligence missing Pentagon money and take your pick.

Thanks,j

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=7858

thanks.

Who was that 40th person who survived? I'd like to know what happened to them...

The one who set the other 39 up.

Presumably also the one who made sure the "mystery" wasn't "solved" before everyone else died

IF there was EVER any doubt about 9/11 being an inside job(i've never thought of it as anything different but), THIS is the deal breaker right here!! TYVM for this bit of info, I had no idea!!

The Office of Naval Intelligence investigates the missing money? That doesn't sound right.

I had heard about the files being targeted, but I had never head 39 people lose their lives - I thought they reported no one was conveniently killed as the area had just been renovated (I think to resist missile attacks...) and wasn't functional yet?

Anyone else remember it like this?

My minds blown, 39 out of 40.

Yes, I do recall exactly this but it was reuters-based media. I was into fox, wsj, and the ny times back then.

They are the department that was investigating the missing money.

No, they are not.

source

55:34 On 9/11 the destroyed Pentagon offices contained a small G2 Unit [US Army G2 Branch Responsible >for Intelligence and Security]; a highly classified Criminal Investigation Service. The part of the Pentagon that >was hit was the site of the Able Danger offices. They were investigating missing nuclear weapons.

Following money may have had something to do with it, but this was a unit of the army that went after really bad people/rogue factions who have the means and resources to carry out something like...the events of 911?

Edit: formatting

Well, that seems to prove that they were part of naval intelligence. How do we assess the relative value of two contradictory baseless statements?

No way you read that whole article already.

I read your comment. I only needed to check the article (and then the video enough to know that their claim that they worked for a "highly classified criminal investigation service" was merely an unprovable and un-falsifiable assertion.

Did you post that to bolster the OP's argument?

only needed to check the article

why did you not read the whole thing then go on to say that it is

merely an unprovable and un-falsifiable assertion.

How do we assess the relative value of two contradictory baseless statements?

You can't have a legitimate opinion on that article unless you've read all of it, regardless of how valid you think it is (which is why we debate it in r/conspiracy, most of the content on this sub is conjecture until it is proven anyway)

Why should I read the whole thing? You posted to provide "evidence" that the people killed were on some super secret financial crime unit. It's a baseless assertion on the part of the morons at veterans today.

super secret financial crime unit

OK, not only did you not read the article, but not even the highlighted portion portion I posted earlier. It is a highly classified Criminal Investigation Service. And compared to all the evidence you've provided:

It's a baseless assertion on the part of the morons at veterans today

or

They are the department that was investigating the missing money.

No, they are not.

so unless you have anything remotely worth contributing post your source, otherwise

/thread

I will be the one to end this thread, thank you.

My point is, I did read your bolded text. Saying it out loud or putting it in bold does not make it true. Am I actually talking past you with this information?

I don't need to read a whole math book to know it sucks. As soon as I encounter a page that says 2+2=5 I stop reading it. Everyone else around here seems to say "zomg! I better post this one!"

Are you daft? You're just making shit up. Veterans today has no association with the source article.

How can you expect people to trust you when you're the one saying 2÷7=boot

Let's see who is daft.

Follow his link: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=7858

Now find the part where it says: "Veterans Today Radio Interview on 9-22-14 With Gordon Duff, Jim Fetzer, Preston James And Stew Webb"

Then at 55:34 in that video it makes the baseless assertion that:

On 9/11 the destroyed Pentagon offices contained a small G2 Unit [US Army G2 Branch Responsible for Intelligence and Security]; a highly classified Criminal Investigation Service.

He provided this as evidence to bolster other unsourced assertions that the people who died were naval intelligence. It was pretty far up the thread so you'll have to concentrate if you want to get to the bottom of this.

Now please explain how I am daft and you are not a moron.

[Patting you on the head]

Run along now.

Fine. But you are still an asshole.

I'm an asshole because you couldn't read or understand the words in front of you?

Yes

make sure to just say that while providing no evidence

Why should I be the one to dig around to find that? He made the claim, he needs to support it. The Office of Naval Intelligence does not account for funds - it's as absurd as saying that the Pentagon gym staff is looking into it. It's a totally separate field.

uh, no, that's not how this works. This isn't a scientific journal where he's trying to claim the credit for some new molecular science, it's a conspiracy theory forum. If you want to participate in a discussion then add something to it yourself and do your own work. The Office of Naval Intelligence investigates.

That's ridiculous. It's /u/Apersonofinterest666 that's making a far-fetched claim. Accountants investigate accounting transactions, not spies. There was no missing money.

hey, look who it is!

Look, it's the guy who has researched this. Downvote him, quick, he's undermining our narrative!

no missing money

I repeat, it's not a scientific journal where he's making some claim, it's a discussion on a forum that you're here to take part in. What YOU are doing is ridiculous and helps no one - least of all yourself.

So it's a discussion forum where one side can make unsupported assertions and you have no problem with it but somebody calls him on it and suddenly they have to present evidence? What kind of discussion is that?

It's well documented that the DOD comptroller and the inspector general investigated these accounting transactions (not missing money).

you're trying really hard to ignore reality while pretending like this is all a big intellectual exercise. Go look it up yourself. You saying "if you don't do my research for me, to inform me in exact detail, then it doesn't count and I don't believe you" is childish and ignorant and ridiculous.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=office+of+naval+intelligence+money+laundering+investigations

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=office+of+naval+intelligence+money+tracking+investigations

I'm not asking anybody to do my research for me. I've done plenty of research about this. I'm one of the few people on this forum to have actually read the inspector general's audit report where $2.3 trillion dollar figure came from. I've read Rumsfeld's speech on 9/10/2001 where he briefly mentions those transactions--not an announcement since they were known publicly before Rumsfeld even took office and in fact, he was asked to look into them at his confirmation hearings.

But what does the research matter if people just make stuff up like "the accounting records were in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed" or even "the records were in the basement of WTC7"! Or "the accountants who were killed in the Pentagon were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars." Not true, but that one is at least plausible. This is the first time I've heard that the Office of Naval Intelligence was investigating that, which doesn't even make sense. People just repeat these things over and over.

I'm not really sure if you're aware of this, but the financial accounting office was situated right where the 'thing' hit. The off-site backups for the DoD spending and black budget programs was indeed stored in a secure federal office suite at WTC Building 7, where the CIA had a large NY headquarters as well.

The office of naval intelligence wasn't investigating that, they were investigating something else. If you want somewhere to start and something new for you to look into, a great place to start is the video '9/11 conspiracy solved'.

the financial accounting office

You think that the Department of Defense has one financial accounting office that fits in a little corner of the Pentagon? The main accounting group in the Department of Defense is DFAS - the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. It has 12,000 employees and locations all over the world. The largest part of the "$2.3 trillion" had to do with transactions between the Kansas City and Cleveland DFAS offices, copying data from the Marine Corps ledger to the Navy ledger. Neither DFAS, nor the two groups that were responsible for investigating these transactions--the Inspector General and the Office of the Comptroller--suffered any losses on 9/11. There were a number of accountants killed, but they worked for a small office called Resource Services Washington, which had nothing to do with investigating DFAS.

The story about "off-site backups" at WTC is completely fabricated. DFAS has multiple redundancy in their own systems, plus they have to send records to the National Archives and Records Administration. NARA is not located in the World Trade Center. It has its own dedicated warehouses and salt mines to store records, not expensive Manhattan real estate.

You want to go watch that video so you can know what we are actually talking about here? That's what I am referencing, if you want to go and watch it and tell me about how literally every bit of that is make believe and not in any way indicative of a greater conspiracy (whether it was saudis or anyone else - I mean more than some angry religious nuts in a cave), I would welcome all of your knowledge to inform me.

it's always good to try to have an actual understanding of the events used to shape the experience of hundreds of millions of people living in our generations.

I like how "$2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity." becomes "Bushco stole $2.3 trillion and set fire to the Pentagon with a cruise missile to get away with it".

Why did I have to read so far down to get to interesting stuff? You two just like to fight so much that you had to argue for 10 comments before writing anything?

What were the result of their investigation if they were NOT killed then? Please point me to a link for the report.

If you are in this sub, you must have a desire for the truth, wouldn't you agree? y

Now you don't necessarily have to agree with everything, but skepticism is expected, and further, that skepticism and desire for the truth— whatever it may be— should be a joint effort.

We all want to know the truth. However, you sound like you are opposed to this whole line of reasoning. If that's the case, you should seek out and submit evidence to the contrary.

Again, there should be no hostility (unless your motives aren't true).

Umm. Okay well I just Googled it and confirmed so do you have a different source?

Why should this not be on the table? More ridiculous stuff has been held up in front of us for over a decade, insulting our intelligence. How does this helicopter/missile possibility insult the intelligence?

This is what happens when shills and those who are brainwashed (that word again) keep attacking people who are sceptics who choose to investigate and form their own opinions about these things... they lose confidence in themself.

A skeptic is also skeptical about things that support their views. You are not a skeptic. You haven't done any investigating on your own. You've read through conspiracy sources that handed you the info and you sucked it in without second guessing it. Probably haven't even done something as simple as wikipeding something you didn't understand . There is so many glaringly obvious holes in this post any actual skeptic would see immediately.

1) People look up when they see helicopters, yet a missile loaded helicopter got all the way to the pentagon in the center of a city unseen?

2) A pilot trained enough to fly an assault chopper, on probably the most sensitive mission a helicopter pilot has ever flown, wouldn't need a line in dirt to hit a spot on such a well known building.

3)Neither would the people on the inside. It's a center office on the ground floor not a maze.

4)Apart from bunker busters, missiles explode on impact and don't blow circular holes directly forward. They explode in every direction. Bunker busters which are designed to penetrate concrete before detonation explode after penetration, obviously. Meaning the area after the last hole would be absolutely fucked. Yet it's not.

5)It's spelled skeptic for fucks sake.

[deleted]

We'd also have to believe it was a jet liner, helicopter, missile, spaceship, and military plane all at once. Some super decepticon shit. Optimus prime better watch his back.

That's not the point. This isn't about whether the OP is right with his theory or not. Rockytimber wondered why his theory couldn't possibly be pondered upon. And it's a valid point. This is about not ridiculing people for trying to form their own ideas about something with sceptical or critical thinking. In my opinion, you have debunked his proposed theory. I am convinced by your arguments. This is what should happen. If someone proposes a theory which they formed themself, it should be argued with in a civil manner if it's probable or not. But not outright ridiculed.

I shouldn't have to convince you of anything with something this obvious. You should have the capacity to do that on your own immediately while reading it. You should've had the thought "wow this is absolute bullshit" before you even finished the first paragraph. You and him are followers on the opposite side of the fence not skeptics.

Not the point. But I think you are not willing to accept the reasons for allowing skeptical thought so I'm gonna cut it off here.

Yah it is the point. Because what you are describing is not skeptical thought. You're describing an excuse for people to not laugh at you for lacking common sense. You're the same person that would ridicule anyone's opinion supporting legit collapse with "shill" and "sheep" while simultaneously crying about people doing it to you. You're not only a follower but a hypocrite.

Can you tell me how this idea reconciles with the testimony provided by these people?

Can you tell me how Sean Boger, the helipad control tower operator would have missed this helicopter shooting a missile?

This is not an attack, this is real testimony provided to everyone and these people don't talk about a helicopter at all. Only a plane and it was in the wrong place. Where does all of this fit in?

Also needs fit in.

Audrea Nelson

2:10

Works in corridor 5 E Ring ("1/4 down from impact") and is used to hearing helicopters flying. She remembers thinking it was unusual to hear one so close to the building. She goes on to say a helicopter was "very close" to the Pentagon BEFORE the Pentagon was struck. Official accounts have claimed that Park Police helicopters only took to the air after the Pentagon was hit.

More about the Pentagon Helicopter

"...the Park Police's helicopters were ordered to intercept the suspicious aircraft that was approaching Washington, who issued that order?"

It is interesting, a bit. That's just me. The problem is more about the plane.

I tie this in because we know Norman Mineta talks and mentions in his 9/11 commission testimony that Dick Cheney had a "young man" come in and inform him that the plane was 50 miles out and every 10 miles as it came in. With him asking if an order still stood. That order was obviously NOT to shoot down said plane.

I don't know about a helicopter but the plane issue, along with a damage path that DOES NOT line up with those who witnessed it, is more critical than a mention of a helicopter.

The plane was witnessed, the explosion happened and a plane was seen traveling away from the building. The event seems to be centered around this detail and not a helicopter. None of these witnesses talk about a helicopter. They all saw a plane.

That and we know if they blew up the building intentionally, a helicopter would not be used for that purpose, nor to distract from it. Don't you think?

What would help this would be if this persons testimony could be attributed to a particular time. If you can find that out, we will know if it is relevant or not.

That and we know if they blew up the building intentionally, a helicopter would not be used for that purpose, nor to distract from it. Don't you think?

That's interesting a bit. That's just me. The problem is more about including all the evidence.

What would help this would be if this persons testimony could be attributed to a particular time.

Like helicopter noise and following explosion time?

I'm not sure how you would do it, but that would be critical.

I'm still not sure how you can reconcile a helicopter (I imagine hovering) and a plane in the same spot at the same time.

Did you get to watch the interviews with those who witnessed the plane on the North side of the Citgo gas station? Can you comment on the damage path that is not possible?

Did you get to watch the interviews with those who witnessed the plane on the North side of the Citgo gas station?

All of them. Quite compelling.

Can you comment on the damage path that is not possible?

Let's hope an untied theory can be established?

Is it not obvious as to what happened? Can you tell me how this fits with helicopter stuff at the same time? How can they be linked? Can you even prove a helicopter was there at the time?

Is it not obvious as to what happened?

At the Pentagon? No.

The link and information I provided about the helicopter is all I've got on helicopters at the Pentagon. Though, I found out Dick Cheney was told a helicopter coming toward the White House.

Source that please.

Source what? Why?

Where did you hear mention of a Cheney being informed about any kind of helicopter?

Yesterday, about 1000 pages ago. I'll see if I can find it.

What did make it into the 9/11 commission report is about a plane. Since we're dealing with planes, how about we address that? Planes were seen and obviously the place was blown up. There are zero credible sources for a helicopter shooting a missile. Even the control tower operator Sean Boger didn't mention any such thing. Dick Cheney and what he says can't be taken seriously at all, so I have to question where you're going with this.

Can you tell me what keeps you going on such a small and likely irrelevant detail like this one, even if it were true? The damage path could not be caused by a helicopter. It was supposedly caused by a plane, that detail is impossible given what people saw with the plane and where it was seen. You yourself said all of those witnesses and their testimony is compelling. Yet, you're over in left field waving your arms and smoke and conjecture!

How can you possible keep on this witch hunt? That's what this is. I question your motives when it comes to this, but that's just me.

How can you possible keep on this witch hunt?

You've gone off the rails and assumed all kinds of things. Evidence of a coverup involving when the helicopter was airborne is evidence of a coverup.

Fine! Show it, prove it! That's all I would like to see. I have evidence of a plane.....you have nothing on a helicopter.

Show your work.

You're message is confusing and after several attempts it appears you cannot distinguish evidence presented from other evidence and theories. Very off putting to say the least. Good luck with your research.

Anyone reading your opinion here and watching the video provided by CIT will know who is representing verifiable evidence or not.

Thanks for sharing.

Pretty please, watch the video and then give a response. If you haven't seen it before, it may change your mind on the subject of "flight paths".

Two Pentagon police officers and 12 other witnesses, as well as the Pentagon police officer inside the Pentagon after the explosion should give you something else to consider in this regard.

Thanks for your time.

There's a person on reddit who appeared deep in a thread of a certain AMA who's aunt was there at the Pentagon, actually with the renovation crew who were applying renovations to the part of the Pentagon that was hit. If I dug up their username and gave it to you, what questions would you ask them?

If they were in the Pentagon, I don't know if I would ask anything. That person would need to be outside for their POV to help show that the plane was not in a position to do the damage it supposedly did that day.

https://archive.is/n1XAI

Yup.

Interesting post.

Not sure why they would need to draw a line like that on the ground but is sure is there in the photo!

Here is more evidence to back up the idea that the accounts given that day near the Pentagon were conflicting and most likely false/scripted.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Believe it or not, planes fly above the ground. They don't mark the lawns if they fly above them. Not sure if you're aware.

I also love all the clipart websites.

Since you seem to think just because some random person said something that backs up your claim. Allow me to retoirt.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

lol...that the only response you have? Picking up on a typo? No response to the content?

Thought as much.

Ah, that's right. Your OP title says that the rest of us don't know anything at all, but you do. I forgot you're the only one who knows anything.

The info you brought up has been debunked a long time ago. Is this your first time on a 9/11 forum? You are bringing up decade old info. This is why we are laughing.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-debunking-popular-mechanics.html

at 400 knots and an altitude of 3 meters, lol. thathappened

Wow. Pretty damn believable if what you say is true.

No it's not. Ask OP to name the missile that can be fired from a helicopter while creating the damage that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon did.

What plane? Show me the plane?

so, you have access rights to military R&D and new weapons technologies huh? that's really interesting rrmco, want to tell us more about all this stuff you know?

or are you saying you think the missiles from the 1970s are the best ones the US has now? or, are you saying you think the military doesn't classify as secret it's new weapons tech?

So no then, you can't. Case closed.

Just for the record. The first predator drone to fire a missile had it rigged up by the cia. Neither the missile nor the first type of predator type drones were designed to work together. In fact the drone was designed to be passive observation only.

It isnt that hard to rig a missile to fire from anything

Not saying it DID happen. Just that rigging such a thing isnt that hard for special ops.

Phoenix missile to create a cosmetic breach hole, then the rigged desktop PCs exploded inside to do the real damage and carnage.

An AIM-54 is air-to-air. There is no helicopter capable of firing it. Furthermore, there is no perpetrator variant that would be necessary to pierce the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon, little less to cause a "cosmetic breach hole". Beyond that, it is an active radar seeking weapon, which would not create an effective lock on the structure of the building.

You're out of this conversation. Next contender please.

What makes you think that the helicopter or the missile couldn't have been modified? If it cost hundreds of millions/billions to carry out 9/11, what would be the R&D cost to reconfigure the missile and helicopter?

You honestly think a missile cannot do this

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg

even though there are rockets and missiles that can level whole buildings?

No - there is literally no missile that can be fired from a helicopter that can do that to a structure like the Pentagon. Period. End of story. End of discussion.

You guys are seriously exposing how out of your league you are in this conversation.

That's... really not much damage. It's just a collapsed wall and a few fires. Hellfires or TOWs could easily do that kind of damage, maybe with 2. I don't know what makes you so qualified, all you do is yell HELICOPTER MISSILES CAN'T DO THAT NOPE without providing any argument or evidence. There's absolutely no reason a hellfire couldn't do that kind of damage, it can probably level a weaker but bigger building easily. You haven't provided one iota of proof that a plane is needed to knock over a wall and catch a building on fire. Furthermore, the plane did alledgedly did this damage whilst not leaving any debris or damage in the lawn despite every single report saying the plane hit the lawn first. Without any part breaking off, huh. Seems logical.

Hell, look at the anti-ship missiles helicopters can fire[don't only think Apaches/Cobras now]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130

Those missiles are each over 2-3000 pounds. EASILY able to do that kind of structural damage. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

That's... really not much damage.

i agree. the pentagon didn't collapse until long after the missile hit. there could have been additional explosives inside the pentagon.

None of those weapons are over 3000lbs (you need to be looking at their explosive payload, not the armament weight), and none of them would do the multi-ring structural damage seen at the Pentagon. Sorry bud.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/killtown/penta_lawn_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg

Again you don't think an 800 pound explosive can do that kind of damage? You are either an idiot, or a troll. Telling by the childish way you debate, I'm assuming a troll at this point. The few missiles I listed were examples of weapons used to destroy enormous ships and aircraft carriers. I didn't even look through the 50+ different helicopter based payloads.

I know, with certainty, that the damage to the Pentagon could not be produced by an 800lbs weapon.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mblqgg3mUy1rhdbxio1_500.jpg

You're absolutely right.

And the downvote brigade comes in force to make sure your comment isn't discussed or seen. Just as an upvote brigade came in to bring this unworthy self submission to the spotlight.

Why is that?

Because this submission exists to discredit the subreddit. To show how easily members are misled and sent off on wild goose chases with unsourced and ill-considered speculation.

Ya cause there's no such thing as classified weapons. They tell us everything.

name the missile that can be fired from a helicopter while creating the damage that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon did.

It was a Soviet Granit P-700 anti-ship cruise missile. Not much else can punch all the way through 6 reinforced walls like that -- clean through the "C" ring.

Soviet Granit P-700

Can not be launched from a helicopter.

Not with that attitude.

It was a Soviet Granit P-700 anti-ship cruise missile. Not much else can punch all the way through 6 reinforced walls like that -- clean through the "C" ring.

I've read, also, that it had a disarmed thermonuclear warhead on-board -- which gets into the whole motivation for demolishing the WTC.

Wow.

That is interesting.

[deleted]

He actually might. Says he works at a recording studio about 40 minutes from the Pentagon.

No you don't....

[deleted]

Biting your fingernails is a bad habit. So is posting your address on the internet.

touche.

Where do you think the cruise missile was launched from?

Good observation. Can it be confirmed that the area of the pentagon that was struck was the area that they were using to conduct an investigation into the lost trillions?Also i noticed from the photo that this side of the building had the least amount of public access. However, can i suggest that there may have been a reason a woman had seen a helicopter in the vicinity and that was it had something to do with the helipad directly adjacent the strike zone. Do you think the mark on the ground could be seen by a drone? Someone here provided an interesting link not to long ago where they also did an analysis of the strike footage and suggested that it was a type of drone that has been unaccounted for. I think your argument and the drone argument are both very plausible.

thanks!

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Helicopter is approaching pentagon. Plane hits it causing explosion. Helicopter leaves. Old woman sees helicopter and explosion and deduces the helicopter was the cause.

Out of all the theories, why a helicopter? Why not a cruise missile? Why not an AGM-86 dropped from a B-52 or B-2?

Out of all the methods do you really think they would go with the slowest, loudest, most visible option?

I believe a B52 way more than a helicopter. Helicopter is just too loud, noticeable, and impractical.

Honestly a tomahawk or an AGM-86 could be mistaken for a plane. In addition, there could have just been a remote controlled 737 or some other plane.

Or the bush administration just sort of let it happen because it played into their interests.

I would then argue that a helicopter can't carry a missile (o guided bomb) that large

Possibly because it was right by the helipad where the people there are used to that type of traffic and would think nothing of a helicopter coming that close to the building there. It would also be able to avoid the pentagon's missiles that no one ever talks about.

I don't know if that is the case, but how I would best answer your question.

I know that people will say "but there could be some super secret explosive that we don't know about", but no weapons carried by a helicopter will do that type of damage. I could have just been an old Air Force jet that was remotely controlled or a cruise missile like a tomahawk. I could see how you could mix up a jet and a tomahawk missile.

The other tower had already been hit by that point, so it would make sense that an extra helicopter might have been deployed around the pentagon due to fears of another attack at the pentagon.

Actual evidence for the Pentagon's missile defense system? It is located a mile away from Ronald Reagon National Airport. Planes fly directly over it every day.

there are video interviews of surviving Pentagon workers from the damaged section, one women expressly states the desktop computers (PCs) all exploded.

this suggests bombs installed in the PC cases, network command signal etc.

Have a source for that? I'd like to read about it.

Or it could have been malware delivered by an email.

If you google 'exploding computers' you will discover that not only was it a known problem way back in 2000, but that it could also be triggered by sending a bad virus containing email message.

And this type of reply is exactly why these conspiracies are a complete joke.

A Troll Grand Master.

So you saw a mark on the lawn and then formed all this back from that on the basis that somehow a scuffed lawn is the marker that would be necessary to correctly place employees and equipment in harms way? Even though that mark was likely only visible from close to the external wall and the Pentagon's interior is well mapped (like most large buildings)?

The people killed in the Pentagon had nothing to do with the "missing trillions" - the accountants and budget analysts worked for the Army's Resource Services. They were responsible for some small amount of Army spending. They did not work for the wider DoD and certainly not for Defense Finance and Accounting Services who were most likely responsible for that.

I've not heard of this 911 call and couldn't immediately find any mention of it, although I do know that some witnesses mentioned a helicopter landing on the helipad at the Pentagon before the crash.

Link the article

Where's the image from the 15th?

that trajectory lines up pretty much perfectly.

Watch it, man. You're gonna attract a bunch of coincidence theorists over here.

Which 2.3 trillion? Wow! I'm really far behind on conspiracy theories.

Donald Rumsfeld announced 2.3 trillion missing from the pentagon on September 10th 2001. http://youtu.be/IVpSBUgbxBU

Out of curiosity why do you believe the Pentagon revealed this information on 9/10 rather than just blowing it all up on 9/11 and then never saying anything?

I've answered this in a previous thread, but what I believe why he announced this the day before he shredded the evidence, is either is A. Extremely bad at cover-ups, evident by his piss poor cover-up of the WTC 7 building, mentioning he didn't even know what it was even though the company that took up 37 of the 47 floors of the tower took a massive beat down from the collapse, including chairman of the International Advisory Board of the company, Donald Rumsfeld himself, B. He didn't know the attack would be on that day, evident by the fact that he was present in the Pentagon when it struck, and also his lack of the deployment of the air force on that day, or C., the most likely, $2.3 trillion is a fuckton of money. After at least a week, people would figure out that $2.3 trillion was mysteriously lost the day before 9/11, and that Donald Rumsfeld knew about the money but decided not to speak. That would give him a higher chance of putting him in legal trouble, and once people see that a federal agent is being put on trial for negligence, all the conspirators are in deep shit.

A. Extremely bad at cover-ups, evident by his piss poor cover-up of the WTC 7 building

Do you actually think it's believable that someone could be so bad at coverups that they would destroy the evidence 24 hours after announcing the existence of the problem in the first place? That's cartoonish.

B. He didn't know the attack would be on that day, evident by the fact that he was present in the Pentagon when it struck

If Rumsfeld did not order the coverup than who did? Because even if he didn't know the exact date and time of the attack he still made a decision to go public with the accounting issue with the knowledge that the evidence would be destroyed. Which brings us back to issue A - which requires inconceivable levels of stupidity.

C., the most likely, $2.3 trillion is a fuckton of money. After at least a week, people would figure out that $2.3 trillion was mysteriously lost the day before 9/11

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what was announced on 9/10. Rumsfeld did not announce that 2.3 Trillion dollars went missing on a specific day. He announced that the Pentagon was not able to adequately track 2.3 Trillion in spending - spending that occurred over a period of years. So it didn't just up an vanish. More specifically it didn't even necessarily go missing. It's more like the Pentagon could not find all the receipts (but that's actually neither here nor there when thinking about why someone would announce a "scandal" hours before blowing up the evidence).

That would give him a higher chance of putting him in legal trouble, and once people see that a federal agent is being put on trial for negligence, all the conspirators are in deep shit.

If we consider the announcement Rumsfeld made to be admission of a crime and that 9/11 was an attempt to destroy the evidence then we once again get to issue A. If destroying the evidence is sufficient to get Rumsfeld off the hook then why admit to the crime before destroying the evidence?

This is the first glimpse of sanity I've seen in this thread

Do you actually think it's believable that someone could be so bad at coverups that they would destroy the evidence 24 hours after announcing the existence of the problem in the first place? That's cartoonish.

I love what you're doing here. You're saying it'd be too suspicious to do something so suspicious, and thus it's too suspicious to actually consider it suspicious at all. It's like a Catch 22. Is there a term for this?

If Rumsfeld did not order the coverup than who did?

You've gotta be kidding me... Is that a real question?

Because even if he didn't know the exact date and time of the attack he still made a decision to go public with the accounting issue with the knowledge that the evidence would be destroyed.

So what? There are infinite ways that don't involve Rumsfeld being in charge. "Get your shit together by the 10th, stuff is going down this week." "Aw, shit, thought it'd be longer. Oh well."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what was announced on 9/10. Rumsfeld did not announce that 2.3 Trillion dollars went missing on a specific day.

Correct.

If we consider the announcement Rumsfeld made to be admission of a crime and that 9/11 was an attempt to destroy the evidence then we once again get to issue A.

Only problem with that is, your "issue A" is BS.

Your whole point: "Announcing 2.3 trillion missing the day before 9/11 is too suspicious to actually be suspicious. Because nobody would do something that dumb."

It's pretty damn suspicious. It's no smoking gun, but it's suspicious. (FYI I ripped apart the post you are replying to, as well. I'm not on his "side")

You're saying it'd be too suspicious to do something so suspicious, and thus it's too suspicious to actually consider it suspicious at all.

No. It's not that it's suspicious. It's that it's objectively pointless. If the attacks really were staged to destroy the evidence then there is literally no reason to announce the scandal for which the evidence will be destroyed. In the absence of Rumsfelds announcement it is unlikely we would even be discussing this which would have made the coverup that much more successful.

You've gotta be kidding me... Is that a real question?

Yes. The poster above me suggested that the reason the attacks occurred when they did (post announcement) was that Rumsfeld was not aware of when the attack would happen. The rest of his posts suggests that the attacks were done at Rumsfeld's behest. I was simply inquiring as to who would be coordinating the attack if not Rumsfeld. Obviously you could pick any number of people. I'm just curious who he thinks did it.

So what? There are infinite ways that don't involve Rumsfeld being in charge.

None of which explain why whoever was in charge would instruct Rumsfeld to go public with the scandal only to destroy the evidence one day later.

Only problem with that is, your "issue A" is BS. Your whole point: "Announcing 2.3 trillion missing the day before 9/11 is too suspicious to actually be suspicious. Because nobody would do something that dumb."

Except that's actually moronic and does nothing to justify announcing it. This isn't the "big lie" or "hiding in plain sight", they aren't pretending that something is different than what we all know it to be (like Russia claiming troops are volunteers or the United States insisting Iraq had WMD) its revealing something no one knew about only to allegedly try and cover it up the next day. The circular logic of "it's so crazy on one would think it was true so we'll say it" is irrelevant because if they never said it we'd never have heard about it (because they blew everyone up).

there is literally no reason to announce the scandal for which the evidence will be destroyed.

Huge assumption, and even if it is true: it doesn't disprove the concept of "maybe he made a bad choice" by saying "no, it was a really bad choice. Pointless, even!"

I'm just curious who he thinks did it.

Honestly, I can only hope he doesn't think he knows that. Different strokes, I guess.

None of which explain why whoever was in charge would instruct Rumsfeld to go public with the scandal only to destroy the evidence one day later. The circular logic of "it's so crazy on one would think it was true so we'll say it" is irrelevant because if they never said it we'd never have heard about it (because they blew everyone up).

You're just wrong to assume that. It could have been perfectly logical to announce it. The investigation was already well underway. Even if most of the people performing the investigation are killed... you're just going to assume that nobody would ever know there even was an investigation? Perhaps we'd be talking about this even more if the "previously secret" investigation was destroyed.

Huge assumption, and even if it is true: it doesn't disprove the concept of "maybe he made a bad choice" by saying "no, it was a really bad" choice. Pointless, even!"

By that logic we can't disprove anything. Aliens could have done it. Lizard people. It's all fair game.

I feel like you've got this misguided concept that his claims require it, but they don't.

Is "B" claim suggests that Rumsfeld was unaware of the the attack which implies someone else did it. He does not state who or for what purpose...which seem like important things.

you're just going to assume that nobody would ever know there even was an investigation? Perhaps we'd be talking about this even more.

Yeah. Because if there's one thing the public loves its accounting /s. If this event wasn't tied to 9/11 literally no one would give a shit.

By that logic we can't disprove anything.

Huh? Just because you can't disprove something by calling it pointless? Is that you're default move?

He does not state who or for what purpose...which seem like important things.

Yeah... so if he thought he knew... he'd probably say so.

Yeah. Because if there's one thing the public loves its accounting

You've got nothing. Yay, I win. Notching my belt as I type this.

If this event wasn't tied to 9/11 literally no one would give a shit.

It would be tied to 9/11 still. Ya know, the Pentagon explosion?

Or are you saying that in general nobody would care? Who does care now? The "conspiracy theory" crowd. There are financial conspiracy threads all over the place, ya know. You're not making any sense.

Huh? Just because you can't disprove something by calling it pointless? Is that you're default move?

Would stunningly illogical make you feel better? You're leaning on "it's so crazy no one would suspect a thing". And that's just laughable. We're sitting here considering that a group of people were able to kill thousands while keeping the general public in the dark and you're suggesting Rumsfeld announced to the world the very thing they were trying to hide...because reasons. OK. If that makes sense to you then take your win because from where I stand that sounds idiotic.

You're leaning on "it's so crazy no one would suspect a thing".

No, I'm not. At all. I'm claiming (leaning on) "It could be something but we don't know."

You're claiming "it definitely isn't anything." You're the only one who can even be wrong here.

It fascinates me that you fail to see this.

you're suggesting Rumsfeld announced to the world the very thing they were trying to hide...because reasons. OK. If that makes sense to you then take your win because from where I stand that sounds idiotic.

You're making an ignorant assumption that nobody would ever know about it at all if it weren't announced at that time. Destroying the paper-trail doesn't remove the investigation from history.

For all you know it didn't make any difference to announce it before or after, or any other number of possible situations that result in an announcement seeming ideal. Your assumption is flawed.

The opposite concept being that the argument "it's so crazy no one will suspect a thing" is infantile?

C., the most likely, $2.3 trillion is a fuckton of money. After at least a week, people would figure out that $2.3 trillion was mysteriously lost the day before 9/11,

Money didn't go missing on 9/10... so no, people would not be thinking that at all

If you remove that, your A and B summarize to "he didn't know exactly when, or didn't plan well/ran out of time"

Considering you weren't even the person who was asked, and this isn't the first thread... maybe you should just stop answering this question

[deleted]

these people?

2.3 trillion is a lot, but money comes up missing all the time in the pentagon. its partially because of TS operations that have odd budgeting restrictions (or lack thereof).

Has there EVER been a report on that missing money that was completed by anyone? Even a bad report?

Some guys ambush interviewed Rumsfeld about it, and Rumsfeld said it was 2.3 Billion, not Trillion and that it was just a tracking issue, none of the money was missing nothing to see here, it's all cool don't worry about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkPUAaBEySQ

On Sept 10 I think he seemed pretty sure it was Trillions not Billions and even said it was a matter of life and death...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-OOrIZBzAU

It doesn't look good, but I guess I'm not sure how to fix the world, so I shouldn't be too critical of our masters.

No. It was bad accounting. They found it at the end of the FY. Calm down, little one.

If you're willing to believe that Rumsfeld is so incompetent that he would be in the building during a missile attack he helped set up would it also not be plausible to believe he is incompetent enough to make an accounting error and read "Trillion" instead of "Billion" on a report?

If I was them I would't have said a damn thing and just blown up the evidence...

it's not just that, he already responded to you about the trillions missing that the financial accounting office would have had the records on - which is another office right in front of what got hit that morning.

there was also a case of $243 billion or so in securities that were cleared immediately after sept. 11 (without thee normal legal process of ownership checks and authenticity checks because the fed and SEC declared an emergency and eased the restrictions normally governing the maturation of securities) that were part of an ongoing money laundering investigation that the El Dorado Task Force and the Office of Naval Intelligence was part of - can you guess which command in the pentagon had the most casualties? The Office of Naval Intelligence lost something like 90% of their people in the office that morning. Can you guess where the entirety of the offices for the El Dorado Task Force (an interagency money laundering investigations unit for the US) was located? In the world trade center.

can you guess where the ONLY off-site backups storing the financial records of the Pentagon were kept? In a secure federal office suite in Building 7 at the WTC complex.

So let's recap, 2.3 trillion, 240 billion, all the records vanishing into puffs of smoke in a period of 5 hours or less and all the people investigating having their commands cut off - and a perfect scapegoat.

Do you have sources for that? And not because I'm challenging you. I just want them for when I get challenged :-D

they exist but I don't have sources copied to a big word file on my hard drive or anything. Google '9/11 conspiracy solved' and that will give you a good place to start.

And let's not forget that most of the high-ranking officials who completely failed to protect the country from these attacks, almost exclusively, were promoted shortly after their total and complete failure at their jobs on 9/11/2001.

2.3 trillion was the estimated sum which the Pentagon could not account for due to issues with it's multitude of accounting systems and frankly lax standards.

Here is the actual speech given by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01: http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/1478/2001-09-10%20to%20George%20W%20Bush%20re%20Waste%20to%20Warfighting-%20Memo%20Attachment.pdf#search="pentagon bureaucracy"

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We canuot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer’s to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us."

"We have committed $100 million for financial modernization, and we’re establishing a Defense Business Board to tap outside expertise as we move to improve the department’s business practices."

In short, the Pentagon is godawful about keeping track of what it spends its money on, in part because it wastes that money with reckless abandon: http://fcnl.org/issues/budget/Waste_Dollars_in_the_Pentagon_Budget.pdf

... uhhh its just a helicopter landing pad...

What about the possibility of a high altitude release of a guided bunker buster? That would pierce the concrete easy. It would have the explosive power to do the damage. And if it could guide itself horizontally enough the trajectory would fit the damage profile.

Has a cruise missile been ruled out?

There's only 1 thing that did it... A fucking American airline 737

You should get linux and/or use tails. But I bet you are right about your theory. I like it very much. Good work.

Aaaaand.. No link regarding the 911 call whatsoever. I believe OP may prefer the company of gentlemen.

Are you Barbara Honegger?

That is extremely interesting.

At the very least, an inbound "airplane" wouldn't leave a trail marking like that, would it?

Also the immediate lawn coverup by that construction equipment is very strange. Wouldn't they want to do some testing of the impact area or at least collect some debris from the lawn? Just a few hours and the heavy construction equipment comes in?

Thanks for the post. Does seem like you found something.

They had been doing construction on that section of the building prior to 9/11, it is entirely possible that this "marker" could be the tracks left by construction vehicles entering the work zone while construction was happening.

edit changed "contraction" to "construction"

With these things, I try to eliminate mundane explanations before moving to the next level. It's a good catch, and an interesting addition to the whole picture, but personally I'm still more interested in the engine they found and whether it fits the plane that hit the building.

There were pictures doing a comparison of the engine (one) found at the site, and of the engine type from the model that hit the building, and they were clearly not the same engine, as well, the one found seemed to match that of a cruise missile...possibly that has been debunked? I'm not up on all of this.

Great thread

Very interesting

The first call to 911 on 9/11 was from a lady who said that a helicopter had gone around the Pentagon and fired a missile at it. - Source?

can a helicopter fire a missile?

Affirmative - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Hellfire_missile_on_helicopter.jpg

More importantly, can it fire a missile large enough to simulate damage from a 747? I doubt it.

oh wow. thanks,

you got a BSOD while typing this??

Hmm .. this seems unrelated but still backup everything you wrote in several locations both online and offline.

What confuses me about the whole Pentagon thing is the lack of witnesses either way. At that time in that area there are an assload of people. 395, the GW parkway, and route 1 go right by it. It was late rush hour.

I happened to be just down the road at a meeting. I felt a very distinct rumble as the wall fell down. It was a crazy morning trying to get out of there.

The jet was traveling at 530mph at the time of impact. It flew perpendicular to the road, and would have been visible for only a few seconds. Tracking it would have required that witnesses find the source and turn their heads fast enough to keep it in sight as it whipped by. Even then it would have been difficult to positively identify what they just saw.

I think you are onto something with this. Nice work. To me it's always been obvious that the missing trillions were the real story at the Pentagon and that a plane never hit it but a missile fired from miles and miles away leaves all sorts of risks like: will it get seen on the way there? Will it have an error or accident before it reaches its destination? Will it get spotted on satellite or radar from some other entity? Will it strike in exactly the correct spot? Will the people "in the know" know where it's going to hit? All of these scenarios are totally unacceptable here because there were trillions of dollars missing. This was no time for fucking around, those offices needed to be destroyed and those people investigating needed to be killed.

All of these issues are solved instantly by having the missile fired from a helicopter right outside the building with a clear marker on the ground for all in the know. There might've been some room for chance with the other planes/buildings, but not with the missing trillions at the Pentagon (the same can be said for WTC7 which was brought down even without being hit by a plane - obviously it was very important that it was destroyed too).

The missing trillions, which they mentioned the day before in Rumsfeld's speech, which they had also mentioned several times before in reports to Congress, which were not missing in the sense that the money had been misplaced or stolen. The missing trillions which they supposedly attacked a section of the Pentagon which included some accountants for, while mentioning the sum in a speech the day before instead of just saying nothing...

The money had been spent, but information regarding the expenditures was spread across multiple incompatible accounting systems and could not be properly itemized for audits and accountability. The 2.3 trillion sum was the accumulated sum that they couldn't properly track. It didn't go missing like it was stolen. Undoubtedly much of it was wasted with the flagrant lack of fiscal responsibility the Pentagon and its private contractors routinely display, but that is a known issue which was hardly threatened by the investigation.

The investigation into the Pentagon's accounting continued after 9/11.

which were not missing in the sense that the money had been misplaced or stolen.

How can something be "missing" without being "misplaced or stolen"? Explain that to me. Where did the money go if it wasn't "misplaced" or "stolen"? Just vanished into thin air in your opinion?

Do you not realize that "We have absolutely no idea what happened to this 2.3 trillion dollars or how it was spent or even if it was spent" and "We lost 2.3 trillion dollars" are really two ways of saying the same thing? In both cases, 2.3 trillion dollars did exist, and now it's gone, and no one knows where any of it went.

How can you possibly say that it wasn't lost or stolen? Literally the least you can say is that it was lost. Or wait, let's call it "misplaced" since newspeak sounds better...

The Pentagon is, much like large corporations and other long standing bureaucracies, replete with waste and redundancies. It is the headquarters for 4 branches of the military, each of which have their own equipment, personnel, logistics, and special projects. Try to imagine how difficult it would be to audit the Pentagon if each project had its own bookkeeping formats and standards, if there are dozens of separate accounting software systems, some a decade or more old, none of which are able to communicate with each other.

If you wanted to investigate one project, you could do so, and the information would be available, if inconveniently arranged. If you wanted to investigate the entirety, the tangled mass would require more time and effort than each of the parts taken individually.

So your argument here is that it's totally normal for 2.3 trillion dollars to be missing without a trace? And not only is it normal but it's acceptable as well?

Or are you saying that the Pentagon never has any idea how it's spending it's money and that there are probably trillions more in their budgets that are also unaccounted for?

You also avoided my simple question of how "missing" is different from "misplaced or stolen". Unless the money vanished into the ether, there are only so many ways it could've gone missing.

I've gtg, but will answer you later

So your argument here is that it's totally normal for 2.3 trillion dollars to be missing without a trace? And not only is it normal but it's acceptable as well?

Normal? Not amongst most corporations or government agencies, no. For the Pentagon, yes. It's an incredibly wasteful organization with a corrupt relationship with its suppliers. Acceptable? Certainly not.

However there is a difference between arguing that the Pentagon is incompetent at tracking their expenditures and engages in an incestuous relationship with the manufacturing branch of the MIC, and suggesting that a lump sum of 2.3 trillion was missing & they hijacked a plane/used a drone/fired a missile from a helicopter in order to assassinate the accountants investigating the loss.

"Missing", "misplaced", or "stolen" all refer to the money itself, and are spins put on the situation by the media and conspiracists with an agenda. The money was spent, it wasn't missing. The issue was that they couldn't tell how all of it was spent without an intense investigation, which is what they were doing, and continued to do after the attacks

Imagine trying to get someone's finances in order. They have receipts everywhere, some in folders, some in boxes, some stuffed inside of books. At times they tried different accounting systems, even digitizing some of the invoices, but some of the computers are ancient and no longer used. They spent the money, you just can't figure out what they spent all of it on.

show me the plane hitting the Pentagon

http://i.imgur.com/bN2yVng.jpg

I 100% believe it was not a plane, but I do not believe it was a helicopter either. If it WAS a missile, why couldn't they just shoot it in the sky/from a long distance away?

Could have been, but if you didn't want US radar techs or the pentagon missile defense to pick it up, you might have thought about an alternative. How many strings do you think Cheney wanted to have to be pulling? He already had that one errand boy checking in every few minutes.

This is all speculation.

Correct, all speculation.

As conspiracies show us sometimes, crazy and unthinkable things are possible. But in order to reach the real truth and to spread the message, it is probably better to stick to reality as much as possible.

it is probably better to stick to reality

what reality? when the government is lying, then you got nothing but speculation to go on unless you want to accept a lie.

Reality relative to everyone else. As to not be crazy and bring more into the idea.

You are talking about make believe. Quite enough of that already. Speculation can suspend belief. Not a bad idea when the alternative is show to be lies.

If the pentagon or some other federal as opposed to commercially owned building had not been hit, that would have changed the terms upon which the US could have entered into war.

There would have probably been a murder trial if not for the pentagon. Instead, there was no murder trial/investigation, and the 9/11 commission was much later and a cover up.

It would seem to me that using a helicopter would be a poor choice. Id think it would be easier to just have it come from the back of an 18 wheeler trailer.

If you watch Barbara Honegger's video on the Pentagon, she talks about a helicopter that was dispatched from the White House that landed at the Pentagon right before the impact and then immediately took off again. There is radar data to back this up as well as witnesses who saw the helicopter. Except in her video, she says that a small business class jet flew across the Pentagon lawn and exploded over the helipad without hitting the building.

Some confirmation.

Audrea Nelson

2:10

Works in corridor 5 E Ring ("1/4 down from impact") and is used to hearing helicopters flying. She remembers thinking it was unusual to hear one so close to the building. She goes on to say a helicopter was "very close" to the Pentagon BEFORE the Pentagon was struck. Official accounts have claimed that Park Police helicopters only took to the air after the Pentagon was hit.

two explosions at slightly different places claimed for the Pentagon.

Her presentation stated that the helicopter was landing but then immediately took off again right as the jet flew across the lawn. The jet exploded over the helipad nearly killing two fire fighters that had just pulled the truck seen burned up in all of the pictures out of the garage. You can see alot of very small debris all over the helipad which is quite a distance from the impact point. She believes the helicopter had something to do with it exploding and it may have been blown up because it was off target for where the Pre planted explosives are. The majority of the damage to the Pentagon was done with explosives.

An infamous researcher did extensive research

Do you know what infamous means? Might want to google that word before you use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGtHhAfe8w

I..... I..... I'm cleaning soda off my screen now. Thank you for that

Having contacted the infamous investigator about the image she said she didn't recall posting it. She has been put through hell and has lost faith in us

So you agree that she's a fraud and lied about posting it and is causing chaos? I still don't know why you would refer to her as infamous

well known for some bad quality or deed.

It's not famous for the wrong reason. Snookie is famous for the wrong reason. She's not infamous. She's a moron. Hitler is infamous

That reply doesn't even make any sense.

come from the back of an 18 wheeler trailer.

or the large 'generator' trailer that is seen burning fiercely from the post attack photos.

it could have been a very large shaped charge, maybe a multi stage one..

I like it. Great stuff. I never heard this one before seems very plausible. It is painfully obvious a plane was not the cause of the hole in the building.

the U.S like every other country on the planet is made up of gangs , just because they don't wear a red handkerchief in their back pocket does not mean they aren't there in plain sight ..

for years people have been giving information on who they are , what they own , what they control , their agenda ..

freemasons , Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Jesuits, mafia , you name it , they are real and they all have power , the "united" states are not as united as one might think , they are after all individual states with self governing bodies , the government of the united states over sees all those smaller governments ..

the biggest land owners are all connected to organisations like freemasons , Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Jesuits, mafia.. and even the church of Rome , Morons 9yes every church) can be seen as a gang (please do not ignore what i am going to say next) it only takes one man who has had a family member fall ill and an organisation to come to their rescue when the "government" fails them .. this man may have a grudge against the government or business .. business man or men ... there is people like this all over the world , in gangs or not part of any thing at all ..

there are powerful people in the world , some victims of wars in other countries , some with a grudge , they go to the u.s in search of a better life , they fall in with the wrong people , they learn the truth .
the truth - within the government of the united states are gangs ..

9/11 was not an inside job , it was a job ..carried out by a gang who holds more power than the government of the united states . if they cant bring the people who did it to justice .. it is because their gang is not as big or powerful then the gang who did it ..

remember that..

my point was a gang is bigger than every one of those groups . the Council on Foreign Relations couldnt not have dont it by them selves and kept it hush hush , same for Bilderburgs or Bank for International Settlements , but one man from each of them in one big gang could pull it off , only takes one or 2 people within a group like those to be able to do it.

I value all opinions about this.

My opinion is that it's an interesting theory, but completely academic. We could speculate all day about what happened, while the people responsible continue to dominate the planet. We need to get our priorities straight. Me included.

That day is surely coming.

I will be there. Save me a grenade launcher.

See this is where you fall down, it's the little things, It wasn't Cheney with that quote is was Bush 1 to a female reporter years before and it was uncorroborated and thus piffle. I'm obviously older than you and I was with you til this just out of respect for work done. But you've advanced hearsay by a decade and attributed it to entirely different people so I'm here to say that while you are good. You're also bullshit and get carried away.

You didn't address his point though. You only pointed out a mistake and decided the rest of his comment was voided.

I think you both agree to a certain extent.

You allude to wanting to stop the people who continue to dominate the planet:

while the people responsible continue to dominate the planet. We need to get our priorities straight. Me included.

If you agree some of those people work in our very own governments, then this guy is trying to help you stop them:

My point in doing this is to get that one or two percent more of the population primed to catch them in the act instead of 14 years later.

I agree that names should be accurate when these topics are discussed and damning quotes are provided. However, you are borderline being pedantic when you dismiss the rest of someone's comment because they got some names wrong.

You think a pilot capable of flying a helicopter with munitions would need a line in the dirt to know where to hit a building? Lol. Also missiles don't explode directly straight leaving circle holes in walls.

Lmao. The people inside would literally only have to be told put the stuff in the office. It's not a maze it's an office building.

Thats like saying an assassin would put a tiny piece of scotch top on the inside of his gun to make sure there wasn't the slightest chance he'd drop it. It's asinine. "We have the resources to get the blueprints of any government building down to a single nail, track 50 different people at once and get them in the right spot, move thousand lb servers into one spot but where gunna need a line in the grass to spot a center office on the ground floor of a five sided building". Lmao.

Did they also put a line in the dirt so they knew where to put the real line in the dirt?

And those were taken immediately after impact and not during clean up after they removed debris?

All of the whole 3 pictures with zero time stamps? Means nothing. Go ahead and hold your ground doesn't change the fact you're standing on paper.

Ironic link.

Go back to standing on your paper. I've address your empty cup, already.

Nope.

Wouldn't have to fires can smolder for days.

Hey look another picture with no time stamp.

Yawn.

No time stamp. No relevance.

The question I have honestly is has anyone questioned or have evidence/links as to why a plane that can seat 250+ people had only 60 something people onboard? I ask this only because I have flown on over 500 flights in the last 5 years alone and I have had maybe 3 flights, literally, that have not been close to capacity and my flights were to the midwest of all places, not very high demand. I am not a big conspiracy theorist other than its fun to question and a lot of the evidence and reasoning is somewhat plausible, but this to me is a very strange thing. Now maybe this was more common before 9/11 and the tight margins airlines are experiencing currently, so I do consider that because airlines really have changed the way they book flight capacity and available flights but, all things the same this is something that would raise a flag to me before a military style designated target scenario as is proposed here. Given the flight destination (LA) this to me would be a very unprofitable flight, something airlines do not do, again this is pre 9/11 so it's plausible that this was more the norm before, but this, financially and logistically speaking, is not something airlines do, nor would I think a flight from DC to LA have that low of demand in the first place that it would not fill up that flight.

I can't answer for those particular flights or the state of airlines pre-911, but Airlines routinely fly partially or empty planes from one location to another. Even if that particular flight is unprofitable, they still need the aircraft at the new location for the next flight.

That is fairly far-fetched. There isn't to my knowledge any conventional explosives that could be fired from a helicopter that would have that effect. If there were additional explosives inside, then why risk having a helicopter at all for more people to see?

The first call to 911 on 9/11 was from a lady who said that a helicopter had gone around the Pentagon and fired a missile at it.

Source?

Wow, it lines up perfectly and then, as shown in your third picture, they covered the line up pretty soon after the incident. Why would they care about covering that up?

The spookiest aspect of this theory, if it is correct, is what happened to the flight that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon and the people on board? The plane and the manifest existed so where did it/they go? That's the part of the scenario that keeps me up at night.

180+ witnesses describe a large jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. There is a massive amount of plane debris at the Pentagon which BS movies like Loose Change and In Plane Sight don't show you. The fact that so many people within the truth movement still don't know these basic facts is incredibly depressing. There is plenty of REAL evidence for government involvement in the attacks in the war games, financing and protection of the terrorists, suppressed warnings like Able Danger, etc. But no, let's just keep rehashing the same old debunked crap over and over again while acting smug and superior about it.

What's weird is, if you go back to 1999 the same mark is there.

Then they covered the land in 2000.

But the mark is back in 2001.

Anyone with Google Earth can check the historical images.

You guys voted this shit up? Reread carefully, many simple fuck ups. You don't use a camera to make a screen grab for one. A chopper firing a missile at the Pentagon would be seen from the road way, no clue how he thinks it could fire from cover.

you'll see that there is a ~20 / 30 ft bridge abutment for it to hide below

You apparently have never talked to anyone who has any flight experience and have just made this all up in your head.

The lawn marking you are citing wasn't there as a trajectory... it' a path that people take to go to the site.... after 9/11. Do a google search of your own photo and check your date, dear.

Nothing is going to hover near ground level OR be able to deliver that kind of firepower from a helicopter. Do you have a basic understanding of physics?

Actually... do you have an understanding of what the Sailors in that wing did? Do you actually think they were looking into a missing 2.3 Trillion? Dude. This isn't NCIS... that's not their job. A missing 2.3 Trillion was above their paygrade.

You have known what from years and years of this kind of encounter. Do tell.... Are you a secret squirrel? Are you in PsyOps?

US aircraft especially helicopters ha e had the abikity to do visual camoflauge since at least the 90's .

yahootie, a form of visual camoflauge using lights to match the sky color for ships on the horizon, was invented in world war 2.

They have had live background color matching aircraft covers for decades. Point a camera from the other side. Electronically paint that image on the front of the aircraft. Simple.

You couldnt have even seen a regjalr painted military helicopter that wanted to hide 40 yards away in the tree line... Especially going 50 mph in traffic on a hwy. That is an extremely busy and narrow funneling roadway.

Where would they find a helicopter pilot willing to fire a missile at the pentagon?

I find it strange that there was no video coverage of the Pentagon, the head of the military.

There is. They kept it under wraps.

This is some good stuff with some solid research. You may be on to something.

It seems like every month, even week now there's comes more evidence or more people shedding light on the fact that this is a conspiracy committed by our government. How much longer are we going to put up with this??

If each revelation contradicts the prior revelation then you end up with nothing.

There are no helicopter-borne missiles that could cause such destruction.

Unless you're privy to the entire arsenal of the United States Military, including experimental/secret munitions, I really don't think you can make a statement like this with absolute certainty.

lol...and yet all the conspiracy theorists can make up as much bullshit as they like and call it fact.

Good one.

Your method of delivery was poor but the statement is true.

This thread : THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST AND PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT IS EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT IT DOES EXIST!

And it's been brought up, more than once, by different accounts, all in this thread.

Using that logic, why not say the missile was fired from an invisible drone. Or maybe the missile was covered in a hologram to make it look like a plane. Who knows, you don't know what kind of technology the military has, so I don't think you can conclusively say that's not what happened.

a one of a kind projectile for that mission.

some form of shaped charge fired from the contractors generator trailer parked by the Pentagon.

its seen partially dismantled and burning in the photos.

Oh good grief.

Phoenix can do this.

Which can't be fired from helicopter.

A helicopter flying over DC is iffy on raising suspicion for those in the area. However, if the helicopter looked like a normal Civilian transport helicopter but outfitted with a missile that is more believable. Hiding in plain site.

Prior to 9/11 a helicopter flying over DC wouldn't have attracted any attention... but a helicopter isn't going to cause that big of a boom in a brick building. Regardless of payload

This is solid, no one can argue with this.

Well I think you know what I mean but what I'm saying is that no one can say that the sky isn't blue without being stupid. It just makes too much sense, and to disagree would be pretty ignorant. Edit: some words

Sure, let me disassemble his argument in one post.

/u/KnightBeforeTomorrow, what missile can be fired from a helicopter that can create the damage seen at the Pentagon?

Game over.

Game over.

Yes because discussions are just like your little video games.. congratulations, you've won

It's not a discussion when a person is blatantly and verifiably wrong, and clearly speaking far, far outside their area of knowledge. His articulation of his point made him look like a fool. That post is me correcting him and excusing him from continuing a conversation that he has no place being in.

Simply put, I went into the conversation knowing that no one would be able to state a missile system capable of the type of damage seen at the Pentagon that could be fired from a helicopter. Anyone answering was bound to be wrong for one reason or another. This guy claiming that an air-to-air missile with only ~130lbs of explosives was going to create the gaping hole in a concrete reinforced structure was just the cherry on top.

no one would be able to state a missile system capable of the type of damage seen at the Pentagon that could be fired from a helicopter

I'll assume you work for the defense sector and have the top secret clearance to be so definitive.

Can I ask you what you think caused the hole in the side of the pentagon that day?

You're correct on your first statement, though it's now past tense as I left the government a few years ago.

An airplane.

Yeah.. Me too

It wasn't something that was fired from a helicopter. That's for shit sure.

That's for shit sure

Well if you say you're shit sure then how could I not take your word for it? Thank you sir, for blessing us with your wisdom!

I am a veteran and understand basic physics. How about you?

I'm a bro on the internet that likes conspiracy theories. Does that upset you?

No... What upsets me is that you stalked my posting history to try to put a dig out there about canning things and never realized I'm not a Dude, bro

We'll I'm not gonna be a sexist bro. Plus who wouldn't question someone's history when they come into r/conspiracy to discredit 9/11 theories. Like I wouldn't come into r/canning to talk about how much better zip-lock baggies are.. That's just disrespectful on so many levels.

Like I said. I haven't seen anything stupid enough to chime in on so far... until now. You seem to need an education as does OP

I apologize for being quiet for so long. I won't make that mistake anymore. I will make sure my presence us known from here on out :)

OH, and you might want to explore more of Reddit. Maybe you have other interests than insulting people you don't know. You never know!

Like I said. I haven't seen anything stupid enough to chime in on so far... until now.

Like I said. You haven't been here long.

You seem to need an education as does OP

I teach myself. You were taught by the system. I wouldn't want anything you consider an 'education'.

I apologize for being quiet for so long. I won't make that mistake anymore. I will make sure my presence us known from here on out :)

whatever that means

OH, and you might want to explore more of Reddit. Maybe you have other interests than insulting people you don't know. You never know!

No thanks. The rest of reddit is just an over 'educated' fuck hole of bullshit.

And you're what... 12? 13? I've given you my background. Who are you? What do you do for a living? What do you have to add to this sub from experience?

And you're what... 12? 13?

maybe yes, but also.. maybe no

I've given you my background. Who are you? What do you do for a living?

wtf?

What do you have to add to this sub from experience?

well to start, I wasn't brainwashed by the system and told to do shit based on lies. Then again, 9/11 happened before I was born, so what do I know.

so yeah... you're 12..13...14 and only play around on one part of Reddit. I feel sorry for you. It's OK. I have you tagged. I will remember this and will remember you.

You might want to talk to a counselor in the "system" and get some therapy... and stop using words you don't understand, mmkay?

It's OK. I have you tagged. I will remember this and will remember you.

Not sure what that means, but I'm flattered

You might want to talk to a counselor in the "system" and get some therapy... and stop using words you don't understand, mmkay?

I like thinking for myself. Plus I didn't use any big words, silly goose. I'll leave that to the 'educated' redditors ;)

You tried to use infamous..... just sayin...

You tried to use infamous..... just sayin...

Ohh, yeah.. no I didn't.

Does downvoting make you feel better? If so? I renew my recommendation of seeking help. You need a doctor or medication... or something

Can you explain what is so obviously incompatible with the Pentagon damage missiles and helicopters?

So no, you can't. Got it.

Most likely the missile was the trigger to the explosives planted inside. Would be a decent rebuttal to yours.

If the Pentagon had been mysteriously crammed with explosives that nobody (in Naval Intelligence, mind you) managed to notice, why would you need a giant missile to set it off? Couldn't you just use a remote control?

mysteriously crammed with explosives that nobody managed to notice

Didn't they 'reinforce' that exact part of the wall right before the event

Ok.. this is now getting even too weird for me to attempt to deal with. What if.... what if... what if.... What if ya'll just can't figure it out? Go with that. Don't make up nonsese about not reinforcing part pf the pentagon and then placing explosives in one of the most secure facilities in the county that happen to be the Navy' version of the FBI's office... come on

Well they got explosives into building 1, 2 and 7. Obviously the pentagon would be harder, but not necessarily impossible depending on who was actually involved in the plot.

What if.... what if... what if.... What if ya'll just can't figure it out? Go with that.

lol look at where you are bro. in this sub we question shit. I see you're not from 'round these parts. Instead of baselessly discrediting everyone in here for considering all possibilities of an otherwise 'known unknown', you could be doing something you care about.. Like canning your food so you can eat it in 10 years and not die.

Well you start with the assumption that WTCs were controlled demolitions, which would sort of render the planes useless wouldn't it? Were the planes filled with people? Were they just holograms?

I do admit, it does have that same stellar logic as the "Pentagon mysteriously filled with C4 and then hit with a missile" theory.

Well you start with the assumption that WTCs were controlled demolitions,

Yes. You obviously don't belong in this sub, but I'll grace you with my love anyway because your username is cute

which would sort of render the planes useless wouldn't?

Nope

Were the planes filled with people?

Maybe yes, but also maybe no.

Were they just holograms?

That would be silly considering no one would see the holograms from on the ground.. but maybe if that's what YOU think! None the less, Good theories bro! keep up the cool work!!

Okay, so if the planes were maybe not filled with passengers, where did they go?

Were they just all shot and dumped in a mass grave? Were they all given new identities as crisis actors? The producer of Frasier and Barbara Olson?

I mean, I wouldn't want to be silly.

I mean, I wouldn't want to be silly.

Then stop being so silly, silly goose!

Look bud, I know you probably won't believe this, but Saddam Hussein's men actually did fly and crash 3 planes into the WTC 1, 2 and 7 buildings, causing extremely hot fires, burning them to the ground. Dick Cheney's story is the real one. We couldn't stop it. Terrorists hate our freedom. Deal with it.

I mean, you act as if people don't claim the planes weren't real http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3nn263/former_george_bush_chief_economist_says_911_was/cvpmm0g

2 of them in NY I think were real, and the third one that hit building 7 I believe was real!

I'm actually trying to bring rational thought into this instead of some kind of "maybe it was a helicopter with a missile" nonsense to this discussion.

Do this bro figure out what kind of payload that helicopter would have to be carrying and how low it would have to be for only one old lady to see it... then test that theory with basic math. See what happens to the chopper. Then you may return to the discussion

I'm good.. thanks for making me smarter by droppin' knowledge bro

Good on ya. Glad to help. Learn math and physics. It will help you not sound like an idiot on the internet :)

really? sweet

Ok I'm not sure about the helicopter part either. It could have been a helicopter flying away from the helipad situated right there before the attack. And something you said about the navy version of the FBI office seems accurate also - the pentagon is pretty damned secure by any standard. When people say why is there no footage of the attack on the pentagon? Its common knowledge that no one in Washington would want that footage out there. Here is the control center of the biggest military in the world and a passenger jet just flies into it. That's like mike Tyson getting knocked out by an old lady. It's an embarrassment. The problem I have is that I just don't see a hollow passenger jet punching the hole shown. The wings would shear off at the initial impact and be left outside. My question to you is, in your opinion sir, what would punch a hole like that in the pentagon?

An airplane. It's not a hollow tube hitting a rock wall.... It's a hollow pressurized tube with a structure. Get off the conspiracy sites and look at actual photos from that day.

I know that a lot of people on this sub don't remember that day but there were real people who died FOR REAL on that day.

Stop trying to rethink what happened. Some nut jobs (who may or may not be planted for another reason) crashed some planes into some buildings. REAL PEOPLE DIED. THIS WAS NOT A VIDEO GAME. THESE PEOPLE DID NOT RESPAWN ELSEWHERE to live happy lives. The people in that office in the pentagon are DEAD.

It was a plane. The plane came in and no one could stop it. There are patriot missle launchers all around DC as a result. NO ONE thought it could happen but it DID.

STOP turning this into a "maybe it was a helicopter" bullshit. It wasn't. It was a plane... of screaming horrified people. DEAL WITH IT

Now you can look at why it happened and then look at the motives of who and why. Stop this BS about "maybe it was time travel" shit.

It's a hollow pressurized tube of aluminum sir. I never said it was a time traveling, helicopter, video game. Airplanes are built to be strong enough to resist tearing themselves apart while being light enough to fly - NOT to punch through six walls of fucking concrete. There were missile launchers on top of the pentagon before 911 and Air Force bases minutes from the site that have any number of aircraft with the ability to be in the air in seconds that SHOULD have stopped whatever hit the pentagon. Whatever hit the building was allowed to hit the building, I thought from your replies you were in the position to realize this. Either you choose to be ignorant of what happened or you can't bring yourself to admit that no fucking way a passenger jet does that kind of damage. A missile launched from a helicopter would have a better chance of breaching every layer of concrete. If your answer is that a passenger jet did that much damage and left behind no evidence then I will cease to engage you further.

There is evidence abound. Stop looking for conspiracy sites and read the news at the time.

Whatever hit the building was allowed to hit the building

Ha Ha Ha Ha.... they tried. The missions failed.

The pentagon attack was below radar range and the focus was on the one they had "eyes" on.

Do you know who Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney is? If not? Google it.

And google something other than conspiracy sites that say there was no wreckage.

When you want to talk about the reasons this happened? I will reply.

You need to inform yourself and not just take what is spoon fed to you to be someone worth conversing with. "I think 911 was a helipcopter scam" isn't enough.

And YES... there is every fucking way a passenger jet did that kind of damage. It's called math and physics. LEARN IT.

(You can't launch a missle from a helicopter except in video games... physics is real)

It's called math and physics. LEARN IT

Apparently your math and physics are fairy tales - you do realize that truck is steel and a plane is aluminum?

Do you realize the potential for a plane made of steeel and aluminum going faster than 30 MPH is greater than a dumptruck going 30 mph?

Here... here is a calculator for you http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Force_calculator.aspx

Who said anything about 30 mph? Have you ever seen the way a plane is constructed? You have convinced me that you are unable to use your own reasoning and your calculator doesn't show enough force to punch through the pentagon as shown on the pictures. Good day to you sir.

Your video, hun. If you think quoting Fez is a good way to go? Then be gone with you too :) I have presented reality and math and you have stomped your feet like a brat.

I said GOOD DAY!

The video says 50 mph. I guess it doesn't matter because you won't watch it any way. The truck didn't make it through the barrier. I tried to explain that the plane weighing twice as much going 5 times as fast still doesn't make the hole shown in the pictures of the pentagon.The math is not there. The plane is not designed to penetrate concrete - it's not a bunker buster. I shall leave you to you own devices.

And you don't understand math but that's OK. People like you are one of the reasons I will not be engaging anyone else in this sub. Go back to your ignorance and unwillingness to listen to reason. What the big picture is? You will miss... you can't see the forest for the trees. It's ok. Enjoy 9th grade. Good luck

I'm pleased you think I'm in 9th grade but more pleased that you won't be back.

Phoenix

i'm sold. nicely done.

i have always known ti to be a missile -- just didn't know from where it came.

• A plane rigged to disintegrate

• Switched when it disappeared from radar for 9 minutes

• AND a missile, not "either/or"

• designed to stimulate the "no plane" theory

• videos of (rigged, substitute) plane hitting Pentagon withheld as a failsafe Ace-In-The-Hole

Remember: the side that was hit was the ONLY side reinforced during "renovations" in the months prior. Remember: Mineta's testimony of Cheney's stand-down was removed form the 9/11 Commission Report.

Almost every witness says they saw a large airplane.

immediate witnesses

You mean people still in shock at what they just saw? You expect supreme court-like testimony?

And you've got one person you vaguely remember (you "can't find" the article) who said there was a helicopter.

That's SO much more convincing. /s

Even if there did exist a missile-shooting helicopter in Arlington that day, it could've been sent to shoot down the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

So now we're into time travel? Why?

So in addition to the explosives in the pentagon that were set off by a helicopter that one crazy lady reported that you can't prove.... there was a path on the ground that was worn by people walking to the site that went back in time that the one of a kind helicopter that was custom built to be able to carry some kind of weaponry powerful enough to set off the explosives that no one knew were there just to hide 2.3 T $ in accounting issues?

In 2015 we are missing 8.5 Trillion from the pentagon budget... what's going to happen next Thursday as a result?

there was a path on the ground that was worn by people walking to the site that went back in time that the one of a kind helicopter that was custom built to be able to carry some kind of weaponry powerful enough to set off the explosives that no one knew were there just to hide 2.3 T $ in accounting issues?

Did you just take every theory in this thread and put it together into one super-hybrid-theory!!! Dude, for never coming to this sub before, you're pretty freakin' good at this stuff! Totally plausible tho bro!!

In 2015 we are missing 8.5 Trillion from the pentagon budget... what's going to happen next Thursday as a result?

And now you're a prophet dude wutt!@!! Based on you're theory of the pentagon, I would say that the government is going to send clock-boy and all of the illuminati aliens from area 51 to blow up the flat moon while altering the weather with chemtrails, causing massive floods, killing all of us, only for you to wake up seconds later connected to a machine deep in the matrix looking down at David Cameron sucking your little pink dick.

I'd say at least 25% plausible right?

I've been a long term subscriber. Just haven't seen something actually stupid enough to get involved in. There is conspiracy and then there is making a mockery of a discussion. OP did that. All I did was take out all the arguments OP said and put them into a statement... that you're defending along the way.

I'd say at least 25% plausible right?

According to the arguments put out there about this so far? Sure. If that's what you want to believe.

If you want to have an actual discussion about this and not just try to get shitty with people who disagree bro then have at it. It would be a change of pace for you. You might learn something

tbh I just love fucking with people when they feel the need to come into a conspiracy thread and discredit everything being questioned because it doesn't fit with the story they believe to be true.

What's your favorite version of that classic 9/11 tale?

So you're just here to be the resident troll. That's awesome.

The 9/11 tale isn't a classic. It is a reality. If it was something larger than an attack and was actually an excuse to go to war is something I will discuss with someone worthy of a debate and a conversation. I'm done playing with trolls.

Have a good night

Look up some stats on this. Eyewitness testimony is often undependable.

This entire thread is about eyewitness testimony. What evidence is there that it wasn't a jet besides the hole being slightly too small? Plane parts were found at the Pentagon (although I'm not asserting they were flight 77). The Plane damaged the generator. Jet fuel was all over the crash site. The only evidence of the light poles being planted is that Lloyd England is kind of a weirdo.

I'm saying all witness testimony is considered weak. Not plane spotters or non plane spotters but all of them.

There are two sets of witnesses. The ones who saw the airliner fly south of the naval annex and fly towards the Pentagon but did not see the impact and that Flight path would not account for the downed light poles and those that say it flew Noth of the Naval Annex and struck the building as the official story states. Guess which group of witnesses are made up primarily of government employees.

Yet both sets swear they saw a jet.

I'm not denying that. I believe the plane was there. It flew over the top of the Pentagon. Like the twin towers, it was a very well done illusion.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/07/cit-virus.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/06/cit-stuff-is-disinfo-wake-up.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/cit-disinfosmoke-and-mirrors.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-citizen-investigation-team.html

Almost every witness says they saw a large airplane.

fly OVER the Pentagon.

Name one witness who saw the plane actually fly over.

There is news footage of a large jet flying over somewhere and iirc it looked more like a cargo plane or something.

So tell me, what could the U.S.A possibly be gaining out of purposely destroying their own Pentagon? I don't mean why they did, because it's supposedly to cover up evidence. My question is why would they stage 9/11? What was the gain out of it?

1. Still being this in the dark.

It. Was. Hit. By. A. Plane.

Are you lost?

If you watch Barbara Honegger's video on the Pentagon, she talks about a helicopter that was dispatched from the White House that landed at the Pentagon right before the impact and then immediately took off again. There is radar data to back this up as well as witnesses who saw the helicopter. Except in her video, she says that a small business class jet flew across the Pentagon lawn and exploded over the helipad without hitting the building.

Most likely the missile was the trigger to the explosives planted inside. Would be a decent rebuttal to yours.

Well, that seems to prove that they were part of naval intelligence. How do we assess the relative value of two contradictory baseless statements?

So it's a discussion forum where one side can make unsupported assertions and you have no problem with it but somebody calls him on it and suddenly they have to present evidence? What kind of discussion is that?

It's well documented that the DOD comptroller and the inspector general investigated these accounting transactions (not missing money).

An infamous researcher did extensive research

Do you know what infamous means? Might want to google that word before you use it.

It wasn't something that was fired from a helicopter. That's for shit sure.

Some guys ambush interviewed Rumsfeld about it, and Rumsfeld said it was 2.3 Billion, not Trillion and that it was just a tracking issue, none of the money was missing nothing to see here, it's all cool don't worry about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkPUAaBEySQ

On Sept 10 I think he seemed pretty sure it was Trillions not Billions and even said it was a matter of life and death...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-OOrIZBzAU

It doesn't look good, but I guess I'm not sure how to fix the world, so I shouldn't be too critical of our masters.

If they were in the Pentagon, I don't know if I would ask anything. That person would need to be outside for their POV to help show that the plane was not in a position to do the damage it supposedly did that day.

You're correct on your first statement, though it's now past tense as I left the government a few years ago.

An airplane.

Are you daft? You're just making shit up. Veterans today has no association with the source article.

How can you expect people to trust you when you're the one saying 2÷7=boot

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/07/cit-virus.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/06/cit-stuff-is-disinfo-wake-up.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/cit-disinfosmoke-and-mirrors.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-citizen-investigation-team.html

The opposite concept being that the argument "it's so crazy no one will suspect a thing" is infantile?

Watch it, man. You're gonna attract a bunch of coincidence theorists over here.

Not the point. But I think you are not willing to accept the reasons for allowing skeptical thought so I'm gonna cut it off here.

I would then argue that a helicopter can't carry a missile (o guided bomb) that large

Did you get to watch the interviews with those who witnessed the plane on the North side of the Citgo gas station?

All of them. Quite compelling.

Can you comment on the damage path that is not possible?

Let's hope an untied theory can be established?

Hey look another picture with no time stamp.