Can't believe the general public doesn't notice no jet parts in

[schmuls]

Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon! Unbelievable!!

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Well, that's because there were jet parts at Penn and the Pentagon.

It's unbelievable that you think they weren't there.

[schmuls]

2. I must have read misinformation. I thought the Pennsylvania jet

(if there was one) was said to be virtually vaporized.

[lovepg]

3. Virtually except for the EVIDENCE they meant us to find. nt

[anigbrowl]

5. Yes, and Satan buried fossils in the earth to make us believe in evolution

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovepg]

8. I would'nt know I will have to take your word for it, Your the expert on satans comings and goings..

[anigbrowl]

9. Good grief...are you still in high school or something?

You say they planted evidence because it doesn't suit you to believe this evidence. This is exactly what creationists say about the evidence for evolution. Frankly I see little to no difference between you and them, you may believe different things but your thinking processes are identical. If you are not in school any more then I am sorry that you were not well served by wherever you went.

[Realityhack]

23. You honestly, seriously do not understand the comparison?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. There were pieces all over, but plenty was recognizable.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_4.html

[defendandprotect]

65. Always good to have this little reminder . . .

of where 'NO PLANES' originates . . .

5 seconds in . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1

[lovepg]

75. Bolo a few questions about your plane debris photo...

Considering the huge explosion so hot most of the plane was supposed to have perished where are the burn marks on the piece of debris.
No evidence of fire at all that is visable. Also the only foliage on the pentagon grounds were trees that were totally burned near the explosion site.
This green leafy folliage the debris is resting on came from where?

[defendandprotect]

11. Yes. . . it "vaporized" but then it reappeared somewhere far off in the woods and . . .

inside a log cabin --!!!

THIS isn't made up -- this is part of the OCT -- !!!!

:evilgrin:

[Realityhack]

13. Stop lying.

Something vaporizing and re-appearing in a cabin is most certainly not part of any official story.
If I am wrong please site your source including the exact quote. Otherwise it is time for you to stop making straw men.

[defendandprotect]

16. Unfortunately, it is sadly true . . .

try looking around for some information -- it may jump up and bite you.

Yes, "plane parts, etal" were found in a cabin in the outer area from the "crash."

Meanwhile, what is it that you're so hysterical about here that you have to try to

deny reality?

Let's see . . . anything to do with MIHOP . . . with treason?

How does it feel to reach a point where no one would even make an effort to give you

info.

[KDLarsen]

17. Strangely surreal

When people make an argument and then refuse to back it up, because they consider your refusal to believe their pet theory du jour "treason".

And while English isn't my native language, I'm still having a heck of a time wrapping my head around

"in the outer area from the "crash."

It's nothing new that small pieces of debris were found far from the crash site, nor is their anything sinister about it. It was small, light pieces of fabric and paper, which is easily pushed around by the wind.

[defendandprotect]

18. "Surreal" indeed . . . that is the very nature of all the OCT re 9/11 . . .

And your lack of familiarity with all of the OCT claims surrounding Shanksville suggests

that you're also unfamiliar with the search function.

You also seem to be confused re "TREASON" . . .

Yes, let's not forget that alleged hijackers "headbands" and passports also fly thru the

air unharmed!

[snooper2]

34. Do you always end every post with an exlamation point!

Like - WOW D&P, you really PAWNED THAT POSTER!

does it help to really reaLLY REALLY GET YOUR POINT ACROSS!!!!!!!!!


I like it BETTER WHEN YOU REALLY HAD ALL CAPS REALLY ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!




AND MORE SPACE BETWEEN EACH LINE!!!!



TRUTHY TO POWER!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

43. ... because you'd like to reduce info about 9/11 to "exclamation marks" by any chance..??

Try to respond --

Here -- try watching ZERO -- You Tube

Come back and stun us all with your powers of reasoning!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[snooper2]

60. Do you have any of this sitting on your table by chance?

[Realityhack]

19. You have yet to point to one place@

Where anyone remotely official talked about anything vaporising and re-appearing.

We all acept that some objects were found far from the main crash site.

But you have yet to back up your claim.

[defendandprotect]

44. Are you on this planet -- ???

[Realityhack]

53. Personal attacks do not constitute evidence.

You commented on something vaporizing then reappearing in a cabin as something 'the official story' (tm) states.

You have provided no evidence of anyone official saying that anything vaporized and then reappeared anywhere. Again I ask you to simply provide a direct quote and the source backing up your claim. Just a simple straightforward request for some evidence to back up your claim. I am just asking a question to get at the truth. Was such a claim made or not. You said it was, prove it.

[Echo In Light]

30. All sorts of miraculously convenient vaporizing planes that day.

[defendandprotect]

12. There was "no evidence" of a plane according to the jet pilot reporting to Gen. Arnold--!!

Arnold is head of NORAD defense for America/Canada -- and he sent a jet pilot
to fly over the area immediately.

That's the report -- "NO PLANE"

Additionally, someone obviously threw some mini-faked plane parts on the lawn . . .
small enough to be carried by hand!

Ah, yes -- and the Shanksville ghost of a plane? Let's see . . . that vaporized
and then reappeared in the far off woods --
in fact, inside a log cabin.

:rofl:

[pfloydguy7750]

6. Yawn

[defendandprotect]

45. You know, that's exactly the attitude we should all have about fascism . . .

and fake wars -- fake "flase flag" attacks --

Why don't most of us see it that way?

[Realityhack]

57. DP he is yawning at the same recycled BS. n/t

[defendandprotect]

10. Right . . . do they ignore of necessity, or do they ignore out of lalalalalal....?

Hard to say --

:evilgrin:

But we also had a CNN reporter at the scene of the Pentagon given reports that there
was a hijacked plane roaming around -- evidently a report that those protecting the
Pentagon didn't hear -- AND THAT REPORTER MADE CLEAR THAT 'NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON' ...
of course, sometime after returning to CNN, he was forced to retract that.
We are left to presume that CNN hires reporters who hallucinate!!

The whole area around the Capitol is a specially high security area --

There's a special designation for the area -- highly restricted airspace covering
Pentagon and White House -- 50 mile radius around DC -- and 17 miles around Washington
Monument -- and 3 miles around Capitol --

THERE IS SEPARATE RADAR TRACKING -- SEPARATE MILITARY RESPONSE --

No unknown aircraft gets thru any of this --

Essentially this area is 'UNREACHABLE' -- an 'AVIATION NO MAN'S LAND" ...

ANDREWS A/F BASE AND NATIONAL GUARD AIRWING/113th SCRAMBLE JETS

and NEITHER ONE responded until after plane hit !!

ALSO, PENTAGON HAS IT'S OWN DEFENSE -- anti-missile batteries -
MOST HEAVILY PROTECTED BUILDING ON THE PLANET!!

any non-military plane approaching would be shot down.

$900 BILLION a year for Defense and the Pentagon can't defend itself???

And . . . btw, Rumsfeld changed the Protocols for intercept about 3 months before 9/11

and changed them back again on 9/12!!!

NO PLANE GETS THRU ANY OF THIS UNLESS IT IS MILITARY --

[Realityhack]

14. Stop making things up.

"ALSO, PENTAGON HAS IT'S OWN DEFENSE -- anti-missile batteries -
MOST HEAVILY PROTECTED BUILDING ON THE PLANET!!

any non-military plane approaching would be shot down."

You can't back up even one of those statements. Not one. The fact is that if anyone here has been brainwashed by the government of the United States it is YOU. Because you have so much blind faith in our military power that not only without evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence you assume these things to be true because you have blind faith in the US governments power.

[defendandprotect]

15. Pentagon is heavily protected, in a heavily restricted area -- except on 9/11 . . .

Of course the Pentagon had heavy protections -- all in the OFF position on 9/11 --

Everything shut down and ensured to "stand down."

The fact is that unless the Pentagon was insane, it had anti-ballistic missiles.

But what are you so frightened of in trying to deny that?

Ohhh . . . let's see, if there was a "stand down" by the Pentagon . . . what could that mean?

:rofl:

Next thing you know the Pentagon will be claiming they'll protect us from Iran!

Maybe even the Russians!

[Neily]

20. Did they?

"The fact is that unless the Pentagon was insane, it had anti-ballistic missiles."

I really would like to be able to find proof of what exactly they had for protection prior to 9/11. I remember going there about 15 years ago and hearing about how secure it was, but for the life of me, I cannot remember if they said they had such protection. I think they likely have those things in place now, but am not sure if we just assume they had them all along or not.

If anyone can actually find information confirming this, it would be great.

[Realityhack]

22. No they did not.

Anti-ballistic missiles would be those things they are trying to convince to work in the missile shield program. The certainly were not in place at the pentagon on 9-11.
Nor is there any evidence of any serious anti-aircraft installation which would be quite large and obvious. In addition it would be rather useless as the pentagon is just about under a major flight approach. So it has air traffic very VERY close by on a constant basis.

[defendandprotect]

25. Doubt they'd be letting the world know exactly what they had . . .

Obviously, wouldn't be wise to let the world know just what defense they had.
But we spend $900 Billion a year on defense and the Pentagon was "reinforcing"
it's outer wall, coincidentally -- so if they weren't aware of the need for
defense then they're in the wrong business, IMO!

Meanwhile, take a look the film ZERO at YouTube . . .

Barbara Honneger is usually right on the money --
She's got the clocks tracked at the Pentagon as well - she's "October Surprise" --
I think it's one of the later parts of the movie - but there's a lot of confirmation
for what our common sense would tell us by Honneger and others.
It is the most heavily protected building in the world!

And, on top of the entire area of the capital being highly restricted airspace -
50 mile radius around DC -- Pentagon and White House --
There is an even more heavily restricted with inner ring of
17 miles and 3 miles has a special designation.
"Aviation no man's land."

There's separate radar tracking for the area --
and separate military response!!
No unknown aircraft goes thru there -- only military aircraft.

Further the "hole" in the Pentagon -- see the pic with a fireman standing on either
side of it -- is something that you would put a bicycle thru -- not even a car.

This "plane" was 44 feet high -- if I recall correctly, with wingspan, it would be
more than 120 feet wide!

And, btw, Major General Larry Arnold -- Commander aviation in NORAD -- US/Canada
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REPORTED HIT ON THE PENTAGON sent up a jet pilot to fly over
to find out what had happened at the Pentagon. The pilot reported back that there
was 'ZERO EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF A PLANE.'

:)


ALSO . .

While the Pentagon, itself, had a one angle shot of what allegedly hit them . . .
The FBI confiscated almost 90 separate complete video recordings of incident --
from hotels, gas stations, etal in the area surrounding the Pentagon -- a few frames
from one or two locations have been released and, guess what . . . ? They show nothing!

According to the Pentagon . . .

"You can't see the plane because the airplane passed between one frame and the next"

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

26. They put surface-to-air missiles on the roof of Bush's Florida Hotel on 9/10/01 . . .

The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort, where Bush stayed the night before 9/11.

On the night of September 10th, Bush stayed at the Colony Beach Resort—“an upscale and relatively pristine tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico, a spindly coral island… off Sarasota, Florida.” Zainlabdeen Omer, a Sudanese native living in Sarasota, told the local police that night that someone he knew who had made violent threats against Bush was in town and Omer was worried about Bush’s safety. The man was identified only as “Ghandi.” A police report states the Secret Service was informed immediately.

After a private dinner with various Florida politicians (including his brother Jeb) and Republican donors, Bush went to bed around 10:00 p.m. Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort , and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead. It’s not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or whether security was increased because of possible threats.

But, supposedly, the Pentagon runs on "Don't worry, be happy!"


:evilgrin:



http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday&printerfriendly=true

[Realityhack]

21. So much evidence... how will I read through all of it. Oh, wait...

you didn't post a single piece of evidence at all. Nothing to back up any of your claims. Not one. Except of course your personal ramblings and an emoticon. Neither of which count as evidence much less convincing evidence.

If you want to change my mind, post factual evidence. That will convince me quite quickly.
Unfortunately I am fairly certain you don't have any so I expect another hollow post with no substance, no facts, no real response to me at all.

[defendandprotect]

27. You can read . .. ???

[Realityhack]

35. I can only assume your posts lack of factual evidence indicates....

that you have none.

[defendandprotect]

37. When you behave as though you ....

don't read, it can only be presumed that you can't --

Try watching ZERO at YouTube . . . and then give us your views --

Watch any part of it -- there are short segments.

Let's see what your reasoning powers are.

[Realityhack]

58. Either you can back up your statement or you can not.

Obviously you can not.

[Flatulo]

31. Reagan International Airport is < 1 mile from the Pentagon.

What's that again about heavily restricted airspace?

Why can't you just admit that you have absolutely no proof whatsover, other than your own feelings, that the Pentagon has anti-aircraft batteries?

You lose any and all credibility when you make claims that have no basis in reality, then accuse others of treason when they don't believe you. In fact, you're something of an inside joke here.

Your posts really do indicate an irrational thought process.

[Realityhack]

33. Well said Flatulo.

BTW it is nice to see you posting again.

[Flatulo]

36. Thanks, but this may be a short stay...

I can only take this place in limited doses.

Still, thank you for the kind words.

[Realityhack]

41. Very understandable.

It is nice to have you around from time to time though. I have learned a lot from discussions with you and a number of others here who exhibit sanity.

[defendandprotect]

46. And what did you learn here, "Realityhack" . . . could it be that the Pentagon needed defense . . .?

Well, I guess it could be obvious to all of us that the Pentagon needed defense

and air defense . . . but it wouldn't be evident to the dummies at the Pentagon?

:evilgrin:

[SDuderstadt]

47. And it's apparently not evident to D&P that...

there would be limited defense value to launching a "surface-to-air" missile over a densely inhabited area from a building on the approach path to a major airport.

Of course, this is the same person who claims that Silverstein was going to have to erect scaffolding to dismantle the WTC Towers.

[Realityhack]

55. Given your posts...

I seriously doubt there is any chance you would understand even the smallest part of what I learned here vs. what I came in understanding.
You clearly do not have the analytical skills to hold a discussion at that level.

[defendandprotect]

62. Well, let's have a great mind like yours make it clear -- Did Pentagon need a defense system????

I guess maybe 9/11 wasn't sufficient proof of that for you or the Pentagon?

Only YOU and the Pentagon would have the analytical skills to hold a discussion at that level.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Flatulo]

66. Let's stay on topic, shall we? What I think matters not one whit.

We're all patiently waiting for that proof you had about the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missiles.

Surely you have photos of them poking out of the ground?

[defendandprotect]

67. Maybe you need a translator . . . Would the Pentagon publish facts of their defense?????

Maybe they would take photos of them with their magic cameras . . . ???



:evilgrin:

[Flatulo]

68. So, if they do not publish details of their defenses, how do you know what they are?

And saying 'it's common sense' does not qualify as an answer.

We're looking for proof. Not conjecture.

[defendandprotect]

69. Let's agree . . . the Pentagon had no defense . . . and they're idiots . . .

and being able to recognize idiots, you're on ignore --

[Flatulo]

70. Thanks - I shall try to struggle along without your incoherent babble.

[lovepg]

74. Do you think it makes sense for the pentagon to have defenses??

If not why the steel reinforced walls being put in at the time of 911? All the cameras?
Someone obviously thinks it needs defending. Would you suspect their are reinforced bunkers?
Safe spots from which to direct the nations defenses from its nerve center?
Or is it just another office building? Just because they have not told us ALL the defenses the building has you certainly cannot conclude there are or were none on 911.
In fact given the defenses WE DO know about the conclusion that there are actually more is much more realistic.

[hack89]

76. It is actually just an office building in time of war.

due to the threat of nuclear decapitation the US military decentralized military command and control a very long time ago. Day to day operational command of military forces is exercised by the Unified Combatant Commands. No forces would be controlled directly from the Pentagon during an attack on America.

They reinforced the walls in defense against terrorist attacks - truck bombs to be specific. It was recognized as a valid threat.

There are most likely reinforced bunkers in and under the Pentagon - for those very few people and activities vital for support the Joint Staff - but remember that they would not be in direct command of military forces in the case of an attack on America. The vast majority of the folks that work at the Pentagon are office workers involved in policy, finance, procurement, etc - all the bureaucratic things needed to run a huge organization.

The issue of missile defense is an easy one. Surface to Air missiles that would provide a credible defense from an air threat would be large and impossible to hide. Radars and launchers are big - they take up a lot of real estate. The idea that there are hidden missiles at the Pentagon is nonsense.

[Realityhack]

71. If you ignore everyone who disagrees with you....

no wonder you are so poorly informed and unable to spot errors in your own thinking.

[lovepg]

73. Yes flatulence is always welcome talk about the stench?

[defendandprotect]

39. If you're buying his argument, I think you understand the need for Pentagon defense . . .????

You can't have it both ways . . .

either the Pentagon needs defense and has it --

or they're idiots -- ??

Which is it?

[Flatulo]

59. Do you realize that you created more than two options here?

Your question is not an 'either/or' although you seem to think it is.

[defendandprotect]

63. "Either the Pentagon needs defense and has it -- or they're idiots . . " .

I think you understand the need for Pentagon defense . . .????

You can't have it both ways . . .

either the Pentagon needs defense and has it --

or they're idiots -- ??

Which is it?

Apologies for making it so difficult for your powers of reasoning . . .

However, it works this way--

If the Pentagon needs defense, obviously they would have it --

Or are they idiots?


Of course, you're trying not to answer, but it only makes you look foolish and desperate.

No one is going to save you from that except you.

[defendandprotect]

38. Iran Contra Airport is presumably flying legally authorized flights?

But, let's believe that FOUR COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS CAN BE SIMUOLTANEOUSLY

HIJACKED FROM OUR NATIONAL AIRPORTS .... NO ONE NOTICES FOR HOURS . . .

COINCIDENTALLY, WE'RE RUNNING FOUR SIMULTANEOUS TRAINING PROGRAMS WHICH

INVOLVE SHIPPING NORAD PLANES TO CANADA -- AND THAT THE '19 HIJACKERS' JUST

GOT LUCKY ON THAT ONE --

And, of course, if your presumption about the dangers of commercial flights

taking off and landing at the airport is to be accepted . . . all the more reason

for the Pentagon to have had a defense system?

Common sense is your enemy --

[Flatulo]

48. May I present this incoherent babbling as Exhibit A ...

I'll see you guys again in a year or so. I'm off to talk to my cat to get grounded in reality again.

[defendandprotect]

50. I'll accept your post as "incoherent babbling/Exhibit A" . . .

Meanwhile, try replying --

Does the Pentagon or does it not need a defense system?

[Flatulo]

52. Sorry, but you are unwilling or unable to understand the words that are being spoken to you.

You were asked repeatedly for proof that the Pentagon *has* an anti-aircraft missile system.

We were not debating whether or not they *need* one. That is a different discussion.

Do you understand the difference?

Since you have not provided proof, I will assume that you are not in possession of proof.

[defendandprotect]

61. And, you're saying, that the Pentagon would make that info public???

Is that what you're saying -- ????

And I've made that point quite often -- in fact, it would be clear to anyone that the

last thing the Pentagon would do would be to make their defense system -- or lack of

which is the preference of the 9/11 OCT believers -- public.

Now ... is it understood that the Pentagon is the most heavily defended building in

the world? Yes, that's taken as understood -- taken for granted.

Or, do you think that W had surface to air missiles on his hotel roof in Florida on 9/10/01

but the Pentagon has nothing? Is that what you really believe?

Coming back to common sense, it is obvious to any and all that the Pentagon needs a

defense system. Except to those who supposedly believe the OCT of 9/11. Why?

Because if the Pentagon had a defense system - including air cover -- then it becomes

quite clear that they were turned off.*

Now, either they have defense systems -- or they are complete idiots we should

not trust with our tax dollars. Which is it?



*

Along with their alarm system to warn personnel at

the Pentagon -- See: April Gallop lawsuit.


Pentagon worker April Gallup saw no airplane debris on 9/11

http://www.wikio.com/video/245256

AND . . .


Published December 19, 2008
April Gallop , Donald Rumsfeld , US Air Force General Richard Myers , Vice President Dick Cheney , landmark 9/11 civil suit

The suit alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred. Additional, unnamed persons with foreknowledge of the attacks are also named.

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/legal-minds-respond-to-landmark-911-civil-suit-against-rumsfeld-cheney/

FURTHER . . .

And I'm sure you're also familiar with the Mineta testimony before Congress re warnings coming
to Cheney in Mineta's presence at the Pentagon -- warning him of INCOMING --

If not, here you go --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[Realityhack]

54. Later. Enjoy reality I hear it is nice...

maybe I should get out of the dungeon too.

[defendandprotect]

64. Agree . . . reality is good --

"NO PLANES" 5 seconds in ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1

[cbdo2007]

24. Who needs "jet parts" with all the eye witness accounts of people seeing the jets crash?

[defendandprotect]

28. Right . . . the OCT is ready to go without jet parts . . .

After all . .

"Who needs jet parts" . . .!!

Meanwhile, an investigation by citizens has revealed that the "plane" did not travel

towards the Pentagon along the route which would have taken it over the lamp posts

which were allegedly knocked down.

Witnesses -- including police officers -- say they saw the plane come in and follow

a different line of approach.

Meanwhile, under a FOIA release, the flight recorder from this flight #93 reports that

the plane was flying at a height too high to enable it to have hit the alleged lamp posts!

[cbdo2007]

29. So you agree that witnesses saw the plane crash? How many witnesses saw a missile?

[defendandprotect]

32. No . . . quite to the contrary . . .

The citizens investigation reveals that pretty much NO ONE "saw" the plane

crash into the Pentagon . . . they saw the plane NEAR the Pentagon.

Or flying over the Pentagon with explosions going off simultaneously.

Others saw the plane still flying off afterwards on the other side of the Pentagon.

Obviously you haven't bothered to watch the citizens investigation?

A "missile" seems to exist in Rumsfeld's mind since he mentioned it.

On the other hand, from the information I'm aware of, it looks more like they used

a bunker buster. But, perhaps Rumsfeld is right? OTOH, certainly there was "no plane"

as reported by the CNN reporter at the scene BEFOREHAND. And by the jet pilot who flew

over the Pentagon to check what had happened for Brig. Gen. Arnold!

[cbdo2007]

40. First report on FoxNews on 9/11 was that people saw a plane crash on I-395 in Washington.

[defendandprotect]

42. Fox News . . . ???? That's propably better than a jet pilot sent by Brig. Gen. Arnold--!!!

but I think it also reveals more about you than you meant to tell us --

A Fox News watcher, eh? Wow --

:evilgrin:

Any chance they were connected to the network as most of those reporting

in on that day with details were people connected to the networks -- !


Further, the cab driver who alleged that a lamp post was knocked down and into

the windshield of his car is now in conflict with not only the witnesses in the

citizens investigation . . . but also with a FOIA report on specifics from the black

box from flight #93 which indicates that it was flying at TOO HIGH AN ALTITUDE to

have hit the lamp posts!!


Suggest you take a look at least at ZERO -- You Tube --

Especially if you're truly concerned about your country.


PS: Brig. Gen. Larry Arnold, Commander of Aviation/NORAD -- immediately sent a jet
pilot to fly over to the Pentagon and see what had hit it.

The pilot reported back that there was "ZERO EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF A PLANE."

[cbdo2007]

49. What you're saying isn't even making sense. Next you're going to tell me the Pentagon

wasn't even it, it was really the Lincoln Memorial.

I'll take eyewitness accounts of a plane crashing near the Pentagon on 9/11 before anyone had any chance to cover anything up over your bits and pieces of "evidence" any day.

[defendandprotect]

51. If you think Fox News makes sense, how can I possibly help you . . .???

Good -- eye witness police officers say the Pentagon plane did NOT fly over

the lamp posts. The FOIA info from the black box of flight #93 says that the

plane was flying at too high an elevation to have hit the lamp posts.

Got that so far?

And, then, of course, there was the CNN reporter on the scene who told us that

'NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" . . .

But, obviously Fox News beats all of that --

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Realityhack]

56. In light of post 4 do you retract the OP? n/t

[defendandprotect]

72. k i c k