Alright, sorry guys...

[Warp_2567]

I'm really not a non-believer, HOWEVER, I do believe that a plane hit the pentagon and not some missile or whatever. I too, think that the U.S govt. had something to do with all of this mess, but only to a certain extent! So, I'm sorry that I made you guys think of me differently. I just have some of my own beliefs and suspicions about 9/11.

[ian neal]

No need to apologise at all even if you were a 'non-believer'. I guess I assumed that you were that's all and so my posts relate in general about how we should engage with our critics

Ian

[Pikey]

Hi WARP 2567,

I have read your posts on the website and cant really understand your purpose of visiting the site or were your coming from.

If you are a truthseeker then I think that you need some help and guidance here on the events of 911 because if having seen the compelling evidence you believe that the official version that flight 77, a Boeing 757 plane went into the Pentagon then I think you have problem.

Have you seen the dvds "Loose change", "In plane site- the directors cut"
or even better have you read the bible on 911 "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin"?

If your answer to the above questions is "no" I can understand why you are a non believer. The purpose of the 911 Truth campaign is to connect to open minds. Analyse the information it is presenting, refer to the above info sources and then address the following questions in sequential order:-

1. Do I believe the official version of the events of 911 as presented by the US & UK government and global media?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes then why waste your time further visiting this website unless you can offer us "911 sceptics" info or evidence which shows that the official version is NOT the conspiracy theory (the response to this issue from the ptb remains one of silence! hence the objective of the campaign to secure a full professional INDEPENDENT inquiry) ?

3. If the the answer to (1) is no then ask yourself why does the official version have to be a lie?

If having answered no to question 1 then the big question is what are you going to do about it, or as David VonKleist bluntly puts it in "IPS- the directors cut" "where is your line in the sand"

As far as I am concerned those who answer "no" to question 1 and do nothing further other than bury their heads in the sand are in effect allies of those responsible for 911.

In my eyes, the 911 Truth campaign and this website is to facilitate and unite those who believe in justice, freedom and that truth conquers all.
That is the reason why I joined the campaign and contribute to this website.

I look forward to seeing you support the petition on this website WARP 2567 (by the way whats the significance in that pseudonymn?)

Love, light, truth & peace

“A small body of determined spirits fired up by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”
Mahatma Gandhi

[Warp_2567]

Hi WARP 2567,

I have read your posts on the website and cant really understand your purpose of visiting the site or were your coming from.

If you are a truthseeker then I think that you need some help and guidance here on the events of 911 because if having seen the compelling evidence you believe that the official version that flight 77, a Boeing 757 plane went into the Pentagon then I think you have problem.

Have you seen the dvds "Loose change", "In plane site- the directors cut"
or even better have you read the bible on 911 "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin"?

If your answer to the above questions is "no" I can understand why you are a non believer. The purpose of the 911 Truth campaign is to connect to open minds. Analyse the information it is presenting, refer to the above info sources and then address the following questions in sequential order:-

1. Do I believe the official version of the events of 911 as presented by the US & UK government and global media?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes then why waste your time further visiting this website unless you can offer us "911 sceptics" info or evidence which shows that the official version is NOT the conspiracy theory (the response to this issue from the ptb remains one of silence! hence the objective of the campaign to secure a full professional INDEPENDENT inquiry) ?

3. If the the answer to (1) is no then ask yourself why does the official version have to be a lie?

If having answered no to question 1 then the big question is what are you going to do about it, or as David VonKleist bluntly puts it in "IPS- the directors cut" "where is your line in the sand"

As far as I am concerned those who answer "no" to question 1 and do nothing further other than bury their heads in the sand are in effect allies of those responsible for 911.

In my eyes, the 911 Truth campaign and this website is to facilitate and unite those who believe in justice, freedom and that truth conquers all.
That is the reason why I joined the campaign and contribute to this website.

I look forward to seeing you support the petition on this website WARP 2567 (by the way whats the significance in that pseudonymn?)

Love, light, truth & peace

“A small body of determined spirits fired up by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”
Mahatma Gandhi

That's great and all, but let's face it: a plane did crash into the pentagon.

I know this is the wrong website to discuss about these things, but I don't understand how it could be a missile projectile or anything else that hit the pentagon. The evidence is there. Debris from the plane was found outside and INSIDE the pentagon crash area.

Do you want me to explain this "perfect hole" to you? From looking at all the pictures of the Pentagon crash area, there is enough evidence to say that something was "launched" really low from the ground right through the pentagon.

Almost immediately, the plane's two wings break off cuz its made of plastic (including the tailwing), BUT the body of the plane is still intact because the front (especially the nose) of any boeing plane is made of reinforced steel. The body of a plane travelling over 400 mph is just like a bullet travelling at a high velocity. It makes perfect sense that a plane made a hole at the end.

Even if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, what else could have travelled at a really high speed at a really low altitude? From what I can remember, missiles are launched at a really high altitude and arc down to its target. How the bloody he** can a missile be launched two feet from the ground? It's like impossible, UNLESS its a cruise missile. Cruise missiles blow up ON IMPACT. It doesn't tear through its target. There's no way it could have been a cruise missile or any other missile type.

[Dstevo]

i'm going to kick myself for replying to this, but here goes:

Warp, you say the wings and tail simpy "broke off", Where are they then? Think about this, each wing holds about 9 tonnes of engine, they aren't made of plastic bags and stuck on with blutac! And 2 wings, 2 engines, the body of the plane,and the tail fitted into that nice neat little hole?

This website was the first to say there was no plane:

http://webplaza.pt.lu/strasjkl/pentagon.html
See if you can find any evidence.

It seems you are also pinning all your arguments on The Pentagon being hit or not being hit by a plane. Even if it was hit by a plane that doesn't explain why they haven't shown the actual footage, just a few dodgy clips with the wrong date stamped on them!

No-one here to my knowledge has speculated about what hit The Pentagon, just most are in agreement that from what we've seen there is no apparant evidence of it, that doesn't mean it didn't, it just means we haven't been shown HARD evidence that it did.
But what about all the other evidence? The Towers "collapse" and WTC7 being "pulled" are the most compelling pieces of evidence, that shows not just prior knowledge, that smacks of outright involvement!

Have you actually watched any of the DVD's on the subject? Because if you have you must have done with your eyes closed and ear plugs in!

[Pikey]

Thats an ouststanding response Dstevo! Well done comrade!

Anyone who wishes to come on this website and do some truthseeking on the events of 911 is, IMO, welcome! This website is after all a learning resource centre for discovering the truth of 911.

Please read "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin WARP, then you will see the illusion of the official version supplied by the ptb.

No a civilian plane, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the compelling evidence on the dvds which I reffered you to clearly proves that. Sadly you never indicated if you had viewed these dvds WARP!

If you can provide photo evidence that a plane did hit the Pentgon you can win £2,000. For further details go to www.911truthBristol.com. As far as I am aware the prize money remains unclaimed!

[mason-free party]

eh Warpy...what happened to all the jet fuel?..don't tell me it was running on empty...lol!...back to the drawing board laddie!

[Justin]

Almost immediately, the plane's two wings break off cuz its made of plastic (including the tailwing), BUT the body of the plane is still intact because the front (especially the nose) of any boeing plane is made of reinforced steel. The body of a plane travelling over 400 mph is just like a bullet travelling at a high velocity. It makes perfect sense that a plane made a hole at the end.

Sorry Warp, but the nose cone of a Boeing 757, like nearly all commercial airliners, is where all the navigation equipment etc is located. and is surrounded by carbon fibre - it is so fragile that a bird strike could even do damage. I'm afraid mate you've got to do a lot more research if you are going to be taken seriously on this site. As Pikey and others have said, please read David Ray Griffin's excellent books as well as Ian Henshall's and Rowland Morgan's Revealed - Challenging the facts behind the War on Terror.

Best wishes

Justin

[Spectre]

Hi WARP 2567,

I have read your posts on the website and cant really understand your purpose of visiting the site or were your coming from.

If you are a truthseeker then I think that you need some help and guidance here on the events of 911 because if having seen the compelling evidence you believe that the official version that flight 77, a Boeing 757 plane went into the Pentagon then I think you have problem.

Have you seen the dvds "Loose change", "In plane site- the directors cut"
or even better have you read the bible on 911 "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin"?

If your answer to the above questions is "no" I can understand why you are a non believer. The purpose of the 911 Truth campaign is to connect to open minds. Analyse the information it is presenting, refer to the above info sources and then address the following questions in sequential order:-

1. Do I believe the official version of the events of 911 as presented by the US & UK government and global media?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes then why waste your time further visiting this website unless you can offer us "911 sceptics" info or evidence which shows that the official version is NOT the conspiracy theory (the response to this issue from the ptb remains one of silence! hence the objective of the campaign to secure a full professional INDEPENDENT inquiry) ?

3. If the the answer to (1) is no then ask yourself why does the official version have to be a lie?

If having answered no to question 1 then the big question is what are you going to do about it, or as David VonKleist bluntly puts it in "IPS- the directors cut" "where is your line in the sand"

As far as I am concerned those who answer "no" to question 1 and do nothing further other than bury their heads in the sand are in effect allies of those responsible for 911.

In my eyes, the 911 Truth campaign and this website is to facilitate and unite those who believe in justice, freedom and that truth conquers all.
That is the reason why I joined the campaign and contribute to this website.

I look forward to seeing you support the petition on this website WARP 2567 (by the way whats the significance in that pseudonymn?)

Love, light, truth & peace

“A small body of determined spirits fired up by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”
Mahatma Gandhi

That's great and all, but let's face it: a plane did crash into the pentagon.

I know this is the wrong website to discuss about these things, but I don't understand how it could be a missile projectile or anything else that hit the pentagon. The evidence is there. Debris from the plane was found outside and INSIDE the pentagon crash area.

Do you want me to explain this "perfect hole" to you? From looking at all the pictures of the Pentagon crash area, there is enough evidence to say that something was "launched" really low from the ground right through the pentagon.

Almost immediately, the plane's two wings break off cuz its made of plastic (including the tailwing), BUT the body of the plane is still intact because the front (especially the nose) of any boeing plane is made of reinforced steel. The body of a plane travelling over 400 mph is just like a bullet travelling at a high velocity. It makes perfect sense that a plane made a hole at the end.

Even if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, what else could have travelled at a really high speed at a really low altitude? From what I can remember, missiles are launched at a really high altitude and arc down to its target. How the bloody he** can a missile be launched two feet from the ground? It's like impossible, UNLESS its a cruise missile. Cruise missiles blow up ON IMPACT. It doesn't tear through its target. There's no way it could have been a cruise missile or any other missile type.]

C'mon guys this guy is just taking the piss - there are a lot of tiresomely ignorant people out there who lack even simple intelligence - you could show them a dark cloudy sky ready to burst forth with rainshowers and they'd still insist on taking sunglasses with them

[Warp_2567]

eh Warpy...what happened to all the jet fuel?..don't tell me it was running on empty...lol!...back to the drawing board laddie!

Seriously, what else is there that can penetrate so many layers of a building? What was it? Don't tell me its a missile, since pretty much all missiles run on FUEL. What else could have been "shot" at ground level? From what I remember, missiles are always shot upward and arcs down to its target. It's really impossible to shoot a missile from ground level and make it travel straight to its target.

[Warp_2567]

Almost immediately, the plane's two wings break off cuz its made of plastic (including the tailwing), BUT the body of the plane is still intact because the front (especially the nose) of any boeing plane is made of reinforced steel. The body of a plane travelling over 400 mph is just like a bullet travelling at a high velocity. It makes perfect sense that a plane made a hole at the end.

Sorry Warp, but the nose cone of a Boeing 757, like nearly all commercial airliners, is where all the navigation equipment etc is located. and is surrounded by carbon fibre - it is so fragile that a bird strike could even do damage. I'm afraid mate you've got to do a lot more research if you are going to be taken seriously on this site. As Pikey and others have said, please read David Ray Griffin's excellent books as well as Ian Henshall's and Rowland Morgan's Revealed - Challenging the facts behind the War on Terror.

Best wishes

Justin

Did you see the 9/11 Commissioning Report on the History Channel? When the Boeing 757 was hijacked, several minutes later, the plane disappeared in radar view. Remember, these hijackers are trained pilots. They even have all of their names and records on the Commission Report. The hijackers shut off the equipment once they figured out the cordinates of their destination. A very smart tactic, huh? The equipment couldn't have caused the plane to explode on impact cuz it wasn't even on! Even if you add the carbon fibre, it won't do jack squat damage cuz all the navigation equipment was off.

[Dstevo]

Thats an ouststanding response Dstevo! Well done comrade!

Thanks Pikey, although it would seem my post has been overlooked by the relevant person, who has decided to answer the question about the jet fuel instead

Warp, i think what mason-free party was getting at is that it was supposed to be a 757 that hit, a 757 full of fuel. Now if you remember from your official 9/11 class that burning fuel is so dangerous that it brings down steel constructed buildings, no matter how much is left after the initial explosion, there is still enough left to bring the building down. So why wasn't the pentagon lawn swimming in it?

The difference between a missile and a plane is simple, a missile carries far less fuel than a plane, that in no way means that i am saying that is what hit, i won't even pretend that i know for certain. I have my own ideas as do most people, but they are my ideas and not for sharing until further evidence is forthcoming.

The best thing you can do is take the advice of myself, pikey, justin, and anyone else who has replied to your post and look into it further, especially reading and watching the books and films listed.

Many Thanks


ps: And now you start quoting from the 9/11 commission report?

[paul wright]

Remember, these hijackers are trained pilots. They even have all of their names and records on the Commission Report. The hijackers shut off the equipment once they figured out the cordinates of their destination. A very smart tactic, huh? The equipment couldn't have caused the plane to explode on impact cuz it wasn't even on! Even if you add the carbon fibre, it won't do jack squat damage cuz all the navigation equipment was off.

Did you know that 99% of Government-originated stories are fake?
Did you know that 99% of people around here have their mind made up, and, Warp, your distractions aren't going to make any difference
Close

[Alan Firminger]

Let's not waste bandwidth and time.

[Warp_2567]

Remember, these hijackers are trained pilots. They even have all of their names and records on the Commission Report. The hijackers shut off the equipment once they figured out the cordinates of their destination. A very smart tactic, huh? The equipment couldn't have caused the plane to explode on impact cuz it wasn't even on! Even if you add the carbon fibre, it won't do jack squat damage cuz all the navigation equipment was off.

Did you know that 99% of Government-originated stories are fake?
Did you know that 99% of people around here have their mind made up, and, Warp, your distractions aren't going to make any difference
Close

Uh, the History Channel isn't a part of the government. The media has never been a part of the government. Throughout history, the media has exposed bad things the government has done, and it doesn't happen just in the U.S

You don't need a degree in rocket science to figure this out. It's called common sense.

The problem with this website is that everyone one of you can't come up with enough evidence to say that it wasn't an airplane.

[markburdge]

I'm a new believer having read both the UK and Us websites and seen the DVD. (Can't say I'm very surprised either!!)

The pentagon evidence is pretty conclusive, but there is one thing I haven't seen discussed on any forums.

What about passengers on the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon. Surely there must be some grieving relatives etc.???

Can someone point me to any thread / imformation about this topic which I think would help to cement the argument.

Thanks

[paul wright]

I'm a new believer having read both the UK and Us websites and seen the DVD. (Can't say I'm very surprised either!!)

The pentagon evidence is pretty conclusive, but there is one thing I haven't seen discussed on any forums.

What about passengers on the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon. Surely there must be some grieving relatives etc.???

Can someone point me to any thread / imformation about this topic which I think would help to cement the argument.

Thanks

I doubt that you'll find much other than surmising over this
It's something we can theorise about but I'm not aware of evidence,other than the survival of some of the alleged hijackers, of what happened to alleged passengers.
The plane may have been taken over by remote control, sent out to the Atlantic and plunged into the ocean
During that period where Flight 77 disappeared from all radar and tracking, it could have landed at a military base and all passengers eliminated, if they hadn't already been gassed in transit.
Of course we have that completely unsubstantiated story of Barbara Olson, supposed to have made peculiar cell phone calls to her Attorney General husband Ted from the Flight, being arrested, alive and well, in Europe recently.
Which, if true or even if not, would allow for a bunch of Northwoods-style employed passengers, who were landed somewhere and took off to pre-arranged new lives and identities
As far as I know, this is all so far theory and conjecture
What actually occurred at the Pentagon is far more substantiated by the visual evidence, by that - the surveillence cameras and so on - withheld, and by the implausibility of the manouevre and targetting

[Spectre]

Remember, these hijackers are trained pilots. They even have all of their names and records on the Commission Report. The hijackers shut off the equipment once they figured out the cordinates of their destination. A very smart tactic, huh? The equipment couldn't have caused the plane to explode on impact cuz it wasn't even on! Even if you add the carbon fibre, it won't do jack squat damage cuz all the navigation equipment was off.

Did you know that 99% of Government-originated stories are fake?
Did you know that 99% of people around here have their mind made up, and, Warp, your distractions aren't going to make any difference
Close

Uh, the History Channel isn't a part of the government. The media has never been a part of the government. Throughout history, the media has exposed bad things the government has done, and it doesn't happen just in the U.S

You don't need a degree in rocket science to figure this out. It's called common sense.

The problem with this website is that everyone one of you can't come up with enough evidence to say that it wasn't an airplane.

What planet do you come from man? Who do you work for? Why do you come here and waste everybody's time? Can't you see that your piss-poor theories and disclaimers don't convince anybody?

If you are so certain of your assertions that a plane hit the Pentagon - then answer me this simple question:

WHY DON'T EITHER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR THE PENTAGON AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES, RELEASE THE FOLLOWING VIDEOTAPES TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS :

(1) FROM THE MANY CCTV CAMERAS AROUND THE PENTAGON ITSELF?

(2) FROM THE NEARBY HOTEL ROOF CCTV CAMERA (FBI CONFISCATED)?

(3) FROM THE NEARBY GAS STATION CCTV CAMERA (ALSO FBI CONFISCATED)?

(4) FROM THE LOCAL TRAFFIC AUTHORITY HIGHWAY SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN THE LOCAL AREA ON THE D.C. BELTWAY?

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SHOW US THE EVIDENCE AND WE WILL ALL GO AWAY AND SHUT UP!

SO TELL ME AGAIN - WHY WON'T THEY SHOW US THE FILMS?

COME ON SMART ALEC ... ANSWER THAT ONE!!!


IN REALITY - I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS

[uselesseater]

As with the 'pods' argument I don't think the 'pentagon plane' is something the truth movement should focus on. There is not much to go on, just some photographs no telling statements in the press or by the pentagon etc.

I think it's possible that the seisure of the tapes was to create a straw man. Intelligence services will create multiple straw men to confuse those looking for the truth.

If it was a plane what was wrong with the missile automated defence system and why terrorists who could barely fly would go to the effort of pulling of the difficult manouver of turning the plane through 180 degrees when they could have just flown the plane into the bit where rumsfeld was.

Visual evidence like the pods and the pentagon damage is a bit flimsy I think. Better to concentrate on what people have said on the record and in the press. The administrations explanations expose their lies.

[Alan Firminger]

Hitting the back of the Pentagon can be explained by assuming that genuine hijackers navigated close, possibly with a handheld GPS. But they only saw the building when they were alongside it. The Pentagon would be hard to find compared to the WTC.
So they recognised their limitations and made a wide turn, assume that they were content to hit the building.
I write this not to destroy the argument because it is impossible for a big aeroplane to disappear into the mousehole.
Simply the fact that the backside was hit is explicable and so is not relevant to this.

[Graham]

eh Warpy...what happened to all the jet fuel?..don't tell me it was running on empty...lol!...back to the drawing board laddie!

Seriously, what else is there that can penetrate so many layers of a building? What was it? Don't tell me its a missile, since pretty much all missiles run on FUEL. What else could have been "shot" at ground level? From what I remember, missiles are always shot upward and arcs down to its target. It's really impossible to shoot a missile from ground level and make it travel straight to its target.

nope, missiles are shot downwards too. they can even take off and land thses days. Look up Global Hawk.