We've all seen the flash movie. Now enter the DVD.

[Myst]

9/11 Loose Change takes the flash movie of the pentagon (Pentagon Strike) to a whole new level. This DVD is hosted by video.google, it's roughly an hour and 20 minutes. The facts are mind blowing. I ask every user of this message board to make time and watch it start to finish with an open mind to both sides of the matter.


yes, it's a conspiracy theory.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8848&q=911

[Vinen]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[Gregorio]

I heard it was aliens who flew a plane into the pentagon.

[Klever]

very interesting

[Marcatil]

Conspiracy theories are always fun debates, the problem is more often than not the intellecutal aspect of it gets lost so quickly that pursuing interest in the matter at hand anymore becomes pointless. =\

[Coco]

I found it interesting. Paranoid, but interesting.

[Chumm]

There's nothing fun to debate here, there's no fucking way a plane crashed into the Pentagon, period.

The election was fixed, and the electoral college was designed as a way for southern votes to mean more by using the population of the disenfranchised ex-slave population as leverage even though they can't vote.

The CIA helped Sadaam take control over Iraq, and provided training and weapons to Al Qaida to fight the communists.

Sadly it's pretty clear there's nothing we can do about it, when something as blatantly obvious as a plane crash with no wreckage that looks exactly like the bunker buster missles we loved watching on the news during Desert Storm can be lied about so openly.

[aurik]

I really hope I'm just missing your sarcasm.

Otherwise...if the plane didn't fly into the pentagon...where did it go? It did take off that morning with a whole bunch of people.

[Chumm]

I really hope I'm just missing your sarcasm.

Otherwise...if the plane didn't fly into the pentagon...where did it go? It did take off that morning with a whole bunch of people.

No idea where the plane went, but I've flown in a 757 before. You think it would do this to a building?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...docs/exit2.jpg
The No Parking sign is my favorite part, not even sort of impacted by the wings, nor any fire damage. A remote detonating missle designed to punch through walls and detonate within could maybe do something like this, but then I could just be some goofy conspiracy theorist.

Also notice the heat damage going up, that would be a result of lots of heat, not an explosion, like say maybe the missle's burning jet fuel heat rising (A plane's fuel burns in an internal combustion engine and runs the motors, like a car, it doesn't burn outside the engine). Hmhmhmhmhmhmhm

[Vinen]

I really hope I'm just missing your sarcasm.

Otherwise...if the plane didn't fly into the pentagon...where did it go? It did take off that morning with a whole bunch of people.

No idea where the plane went, but I've flown in a 757 before. You think it would do this to a building?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...docs/exit2.jpg
The No Parking sign is my favorite part, not even sort of impacted by the wings, nor any fire damage. A remote detonating missle designed to punch through walls and detonate within could maybe do something like this, but then I could just be some goofy conspiracy theorist.

Also notice the heat damage going up, that would be a result of lots of heat, not an explosion, like say maybe the missle's burning jet fuel heat rising (A plane's fuel burns in an internal combustion engine and runs the motors, like a car, it doesn't burn outside the engine). Hmhmhmhmhmhmhm

Your retarded

[Lockecole]

I really hope I'm just missing your sarcasm.

Otherwise...if the plane didn't fly into the pentagon...where did it go? It did take off that morning with a whole bunch of people.

No idea where the plane went, but I've flown in a 757 before. You think it would do this to a building?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...docs/exit2.jpg
The No Parking sign is my favorite part, not even sort of impacted by the wings, nor any fire damage. A remote detonating missle designed to punch through walls and detonate within could maybe do something like this, but then I could just be some goofy conspiracy theorist.

Also notice the heat damage going up, that would be a result of lots of heat, not an explosion, like say maybe the missle's burning jet fuel heat rising (A plane's fuel burns in an internal combustion engine and runs the motors, like a car, it doesn't burn outside the engine). Hmhmhmhmhmhmhm

Your retarded

He makes a point Chumm. Wait...no. That was you.

[Chumm]

Your retarded

Yeah that's pretty much the best defense the administration can come up with, and the grammar is very Bush. You do your country proud son.

[Vinen]

Your retarded

Yeah that's pretty much the best defense the administration can come up with, and the grammar is very Bush. You do your country proud son.

Yeah, yeah I botched up the grammar... I honestly don't care

Anyhow, you’re retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Read the section on The Pentagon... now

Read this article also which documents a plane crash which left very few debris also.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/an ... crash.html

/Vinen

[Klever]

Chumm, don't worry there will be many many many people who will attack your charectar because of these facts your present.


Northwoods:

http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm

This document is an unclassified as of today, but this is a real govt document, not written by "theorists." Here is a link to an ABC news story validating it's existence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Why mention this document? This is proof that it is within our own govt's power to attack innocent people to launch it's own agenda. Does that mean 9/11 was an inside job? Not yet but you have to continue to look at the scenario.

The FEMA report about the plane that crashed into the pentagon states that the reason there wasn't plane debris thrown everywhere, is because it was "vaporized." This is our own goverment's official report...

This is something that has never EVER happened in aviation history.

In addition, on Sept 11th in NYC 3 engineering anomolies happened within a few hours of each, but never once before in tower history. WTC tower buildings fell after burning for about an hour each, something that has never happened to a tower. EVER. Try to understand on Sept 11th 2001 you want us to believe that:

1 plane and 3 towers all destroyed in ways that had never happened previously in history?

This is just a small small portion of very peculiar evidence that raises many red flags in my mind.

WTC building 7 fell hours after the first 2 hours, but in a really odd fashion.
Here is a .gif of it, excuse the loading time and the slow movement of the .gif, i think they slowed the footage down alot to prove a point.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../docs/wtc7.gif

I could go on for a while longer, but this building fell do to a "internal fire" but to me that doesnt look like any sort collapse by fire. If anyone has seen a controlled demolition before, you may think that looks eerily similar.

The official FEMA report for the fall of building WTC was debris from the other buildings started a fire that collapsed the smaller building hours later.
Hah. We are supposed to believe fiery falling debris landed hundreds of feet away, ignited a fire and then caused the building to collapse? Please.

[Chumm]

The only part of the Wikipedia article that goes against the no plane theory:

Those who believe something other than a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon must invariably disregard well over a hundred witness statements documented online to the press and authorities.

Is based solely on the "eyewitness" accounts from people on one of the most emotional and sensationalized days in US history.

Another article attempting to disprove the no plane theory by comparing the C-130 crash:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html
states:

The Pentagon attack plane was flying at over 500 mph, according to the ASCE's report. That is faster than the top speed of a 757, and much faster than the landing speed of any aircraft. At its lower crash speed, there was much less energy to break up the C-130.

Show me a plane that moves like a missle and I'll believe that it created a clean hole like a missle.

The C-130 crash also helps prove the theory that the towers were brought down by internal explosives, evident in the condition of the apartment building after the crash:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/185835...0605_iran2.jpg

[Quicklet]

The C-130 crash also helps prove the theory that the towers were brought down by internal explosives, evident in the condition of the apartment building after the crash:

Because a small plane obviously carries the same amount of fuel as a commercial airplane heading across the country which has just taken off.

1 plane and 3 towers all destroyed in ways that had never happened previously in history?

"Hay guyz, Hiroshima wasn't destroyed by the atom bomb! It was just a conspiracy because a whole city could never have been blown up before!"

I guess you have to disregard all the phone calls made by passengers aboard the planes after they were hijacked too, right?

[Chumm]

The C-130 crash also helps prove the theory that the towers were brought down by internal explosives, evident in the condition of the apartment building after the crash:

Because a small plane obviously carries the same amount of fuel as a commercial airplane heading across the country which has just taken off.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/an ... crash.html

A C-130 is a four-engine turboprop aircraft similar in weight to a Boeing 757

Not the same fuel, but the same size plane. The buildings weren't the same size either, one was a mid-sized apartment building, one was the world fucking trade center.

"Hay guyz, Hiroshima wasn't destroyed by the atom bomb! It was just a conspiracy because a whole city could never have been blown up before!"

An atomic bomb blowing up a fuckton of stuff isn't unheard of, in fact they were extensively tested prior to being used, there's plenty of precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing
Kaboom.

I guess you have to disregard all the phone calls made by passengers aboard the planes after they were hijacked too, right?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/anal ... calls.html

In one of two calls Ted Olsen said he received from his wife, Barbara, she asked "What should I tell the pilot?," referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Chic was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. It seems highly doubtful that he could have been persuaded to hand over the stick without a fight, and agree to sit in the back of the plane, especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked.

Madeline Sweeney, who was the "anchor" for Flight 11, says: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash, as though she, a Massachusetts-based flight attendant of 12 years, had never seen the Manhattan skyline before. Supposedly she was continuously monitoring the view out a window.

There is no public evidence of recordings of any of the conversations, despite the extended length of some of them, except for the alleged calls from Flight 11 attendants Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong.

People embellish and make shit up all the time, especially when being egged on by a nation saying "Let's roll".

You could say it's all a matter of opinion. It really is, it's true that we the people don't have shit for facts, but instead have to rely on our own perceptions, but our own are far more valuable than those versions of the story that are spoonfed to us by the media. If reviewing independant media convinces you that the government isn't lying about 9/11, so be it. Doesn't matter anyway, people care more about the next episode of Survivor than they do about the world.

[thestalkmore]

The only part of the Wikipedia article that goes against the no plane theory:

Those who believe something other than a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon must invariably disregard well over a hundred witness statements documented online to the press and authorities.

Is based solely on the "eyewitness" accounts from people on one of the most emotional and sensationalized days in US history.

Another article attempting to disprove the no plane theory by comparing the C-130 crash:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html
states:
[quote:f4f5f]The Pentagon attack plane was flying at over 500 mph, according to the ASCE's report. That is faster than the top speed of a 757, and much faster than the landing speed of any aircraft. At its lower crash speed, there was much less energy to break up the C-130.

Show me a plane that moves like a missle and I'll believe that it created a clean hole like a missle.

The C-130 crash also helps prove the theory that the towers were brought down by internal explosives, evident in the condition of the apartment building after the crash:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/185835...0605_iran2.jpg[/quote:f4f5f]

I have never heard such ludicrousy. Ever.

[Lordwafik]

World Trade Center was the worlds biggest insurance job?

[rahvin]

so those of you who believe a plane hit the pentagon how do you explain the lack of damage to the ground infront of the pentagon? The plane was said to "bounce" off the ground.

Since the plane hit those light poles, how come they are not bend or damaged in the way that they should be?

How come there is not a plane in the video when the explosion happened with the pentagon?

how come 4 days before the plane hit the pentagon there was a white mark on the ground almost exacly in the same direction of what the plane hit

where is the debris (and dont feed me the bullshit that it vaporized upon impact)

why did the wings not make a SINGLE BIT OF DAMAGE when the plane went inside the building?

it all seems strange to me