Why the pentgon had to be attacked

@no1marauder said
Have you ever seen a plane crash site? Wreckage gets strewn over a wide area.

It's there and conclusive evidence your nutty conspiracy theory is bogus.

Then show me a picture of that. You don't really believe no such pictures exist, do you? Show them to me. Jet engines do not dissolve into nothing. Wings do not disappear beyond recognition when the rest of the building doesn't.

Show me the pictures. Close up pictures of that big crime scene.

@metal-brain said
Then show me a picture of that. You don't really believe no such pictures exist, do you? Show them to me. Jet engines do not dissolve into nothing. Wings do not disappear beyond recognition when the rest of the building doesn't.

Show me the pictures. Close up pictures of that big crime scene.

I've shown sufficient evidence to rebut your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

@no1marauder said
I've shown sufficient evidence to rebut your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Show me the close up pictures of the hole in the pentagon.
I have seen one before. There was no plane and very few things were burned in that hole.

They lied to you when they told you a plane was on film they released. There was no plane on that film. You are so gullible. Now you are defending the liars again. What is wrong with you?

@metal-brain said
Show me the close up pictures of the hole in the pentagon.
I have seen one before. There was no plane and very few things were burned in that hole.

They lied to you when they told you a plane was on film they released. There was no plane on that film. You are so gullible. Now you are defending the liars again. What is wrong with you?

You're an idiot. I directed you to a series of photos where the plane is clearly visible when it is about to hit the Pentagon. It struck the building going more than 500 mph, so obviously large sections of the plane aren't going to remain intact, but wreckage can be seen in the vicinity. Plus there are numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Plus what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers (who's bodies were recovered at the scene)?

This is one of your most stupid conspiracy theories and that's saying something.

@no1marauder said
You're an idiot. I directed you to a series of photos where the plane is clearly visible when it is about to hit the Pentagon. It struck the building going more than 500 mph, so obviously large sections of the plane aren't going to remain intact, but wreckage can be seen in the vicinity. Plus there are numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Plus what ha ...[text shortened]... d at the scene)?

This is one of your most stupid conspiracy theories and that's saying something.

Where are the pictures of the jet engines?

@metal-brain said
Where are the pictures of the jet engines?

Where is your picture of Rumsfeld burning the papers?

Same question!

@shallow-blue said
Where is your picture of Rumsfeld burning the papers?

Same question!

Papers can disappear. Jet engines don't.

@metal-brain said
Papers can disappear. Jet engines don't.

The money was in my pocket the whole time. Magic.

@metal-brain said
Papers can disappear. Jet engines don't.

Why not? Are they made of special metals not found in this dimension and therefor cannot be destroyed here along with the wings and the fuselage.
Given the blast resistant nature of the pentagon most of the impact force of the two meeting at 500 mph would be focused of the plane plus the heat from the aviation fuel, again, with nowhere else to go would also be focused of the remains of the plane.
What do you think happened to that flight and the people on it?

@metal-brain said
Where are the pictures of the jet engines?

Lots of pictures of jet parts, several with American Airlines markings, and some large parts, like landing gears, etc. The jet engines are what made the weird perfectly round hole the Loose Change people like to show, claiming it's too small for the airliner body haha.
To deny that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon is a weird, mistaken notion.
The "cruise missile did" it claims are likewise ridiculous.

@no1marauder said
Go to the first set of photos after page 82 in my link. The plane is clearly visible in the background.

It literally says indistinct picture of plane. If that looks like a 12 ft diameter fuselage in that indistinct shot, then that is your belief. If you believe any pilot could have brought the plane down from altitude to do a suicide run into the building barely feet off the deck then you have greater faith in the seemingly impossible than the average person.

@kmax87 said
It literally says indistinct picture of plane. If that looks like a 12 ft diameter fuselage in that indistinct shot, then that is your belief. If you believe any pilot could have brought the plane down from altitude to do a suicide run into the building barely feet off the deck then you have greater faith in the seemingly impossible than the average person.

OK then what did it?
Was that Thor's Hammer in the blurb?

@kmax87 said
It literally says indistinct picture of plane. If that looks like a 12 ft diameter fuselage in that indistinct shot, then that is your belief. If you believe any pilot could have brought the plane down from altitude to do a suicide run into the building barely feet off the deck then you have greater faith in the seemingly impossible than the average person.

There's nothing "impossible" about the path that Flight 77 took into the Pentagon; that it was flying at extremely low altitude seconds before the crash is consistent with all available evidence:

". Less than two seconds before the plane hit the Pentagon,
R. E. Rabogliatti, a building management specialist at the Navy Annex, peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building. Later, recalling its screaming engines he judged that the pilot must have pushed the jet's throttle to the limit; he estimated its altitude at less than 150 feet."

p. 14

"Others in the immediate vicinity who witnessed the impact recalled that the airliner struck several obstacles, including light poles on Route 27, on the way to its target. The right wing hit a portable generator and the right engine crushed a chain link fence. The left engine smashed an external steam vault."

pp. 15-16

You're being misleading; while the first photo of the series I cited does state "indistinct view of the aircraft" the second, as it approaches the Pentagon, says "Zoomed image focusing on aircraft" and in that one, the plane is clearly visible.

Page numbers are from the report at https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf

@jj-adams said
To deny that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon is a weird, mistaken notion.

It's not a mistake. The wrongness is intentional.

@no1marauder said
You're an idiot. I directed you to a series of photos where the plane is clearly visible when it is about to hit the Pentagon. It struck the building going more than 500 mph, so obviously large sections of the plane aren't going to remain intact, but wreckage can be seen in the vicinity. Plus there are numerous eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Plus what ha ...[text shortened]... d at the scene)?

This is one of your most stupid conspiracy theories and that's saying something.

The Frightening Fraud, by Thierry Meyssan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/01/september11.france