Teacher under fire for his Cheney-9/11 theory

[VivaMexico 0]

Okay, so if it was a cruise missile that skipped across the lawn and hit the Pentagon, why did that not destroy the lawn either?

The fact is that all the "eyewitnesses" that reported seeing the plane skip across the lawn were from media outlets, likely reporting any rumor they heard. In the hours and days following 9/11 there were many rumours circulated. Just because CNN says someone saw a plane skip across the lawn doesn't mean it happened.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Okay, so if it was a cruise missile that skipped across the lawn and hit the Pentagon, why did that not destroy the lawn either?

The fact is that all the "eyewitnesses" that reported seeing the plane skip across the lawn were from media outlets, likely reporting any rumor they heard. In the hours and days following 9/11 there were many rumours circulated. Just because CNN says someone saw a plane skip across the lawn doesn't mean it happened.

it was the "astroturf" cruise missile

[VivaMexico 0]

Okay, so if it was a cruise missile that skipped across the lawn and hit the Pentagon, why did that not destroy the lawn either?

The fact is that all the "eyewitnesses" that reported seeing the plane skip across the lawn were from media outlets, likely reporting any rumor they heard. In the hours and days following 9/11 there were many rumours circulated. Just because CNN says someone saw a plane skip across the lawn doesn't mean it happened.

it was the "astroturf" cruise missile

Or perhaps we invented a new missle that bounces so we can "get 'em on the 1st hop"

[yabasta 0]

I don't see how those photos prove that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Why is it impossible that a plane could hit the side of the building? Why would it have to hit the grass first? Why is the hole too small for a 757...it looks pretty damn big to me!

And to reiterate StevenandJinky's question, why would the military fire a cruise missile at themselves? Sounds like a great Dan Brown novel to me.

Well those photos make it very difficult to see where you could fit a Boeing 757. The only large hole appears after the wall collapses. I didn`t say it was impossible that a plane could hit the side of the building it just seemed both more difficult and less effective. If you think of yourself as a suicide pilot where would you crash a plane if the Pentagon was your target. I imagine the most popular theory would be that the attacks were meant to kill as many Americans as possible right? So how come such a relatively low number were killed by such devastating attacks?

I never claimed the Plane would have to hit the grass first but i believe this is reported by many and is a good example of how reports are often prven to be false.

The hole looks big enough to you? It looks way too small to me. What hole are you looking at? See how the roof is intact and many of the windows?

A big question i have for official story supporters is this:

If a Boeing 757 destroyed the north tower and a Boeing 757 destroyed the south tower(and i mean destroyed) how come the Pentagon came out so relatively intact? Shouldn`t the raging inferno have destroyed the building to a larger degree?

As for why the government would fire a missile (or Boeing) at themselves? Well that is easy really. The government wrote their own answer to this in Operation Northwoods. If that is not answer enough i would refer you to history. Nero burning Rome and Hitler burning the Reichstag for example. How does that quote go?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Artegal 1]

Gee lets compare the 1930's in Europe where you would be lucky to get a radio report live--with 2001 where 1,000 of LIVE television and LIVE radio, and Millions of Cell Phone users were watching (100s of them inside the airplanes) in Disbelife LIVE as 4 planes hijacked by Islamic terrorist killed over 3,000 people.

Yes its an exact comparison. How easily we were all fooled--You know the World Trade Center, the Army side of the Pentagon and 4 jumbo jets and 3,000 people are probably still there--its just that David Copperfield has them hidden or turned in to a Tiger.

Yeah that's it we were all fooled--and you in the conspiracy camp have overcovered the truth--only problem is you are fooled too--because all of your conspirators have disappeared too. You can't find them--because oops they all died on Sept 11th.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Artegal

[VivaMexico 0]

Well those photos make it very difficult to see where you could fit a Boeing 757. The only large hole appears after the wall collapses. I didn`t say it was impossible that a plane could hit the side of the building it just seemed both more difficult and less effective. If you think of yourself as a suicide pilot where would you crash a plane if the Pentagon was your target. I imagine the most popular theory would be that the attacks were meant to kill as many Americans as possible right? So how come such a relatively low number were killed by such devastating attacks?

I never claimed the Plane would have to hit the grass first but i believe this is reported by many and is a good example of how reports are often prven to be false.

The hole looks big enough to you? It looks way too small to me. What hole are you looking at? See how the roof is intact and many of the windows?

A big question i have for official story supporters is this:

If a Boeing 757 destroyed the north tower and a Boeing 757 destroyed the south tower(and i mean destroyed) how come the Pentagon came out so relatively intact? Shouldn`t the raging inferno have destroyed the building to a larger degree?

As for why the government would fire a missile (or Boeing) at themselves? Well that is easy really. The government wrote their own answer to this in Operation Northwoods. If that is not answer enough i would refer you to history. Nero burning Rome and Hitler burning the Reichstag for example. How does that quote go?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The plane hit a section of the Pentagon that had just been remodeled. Many of the offices were still empty because they had not moved back into them. That is why relatively few were killed there.

Secondly, the Pentagon is a vastly different building than the WTC. There is no comparison between the two. The Pentagon only has 3 stories above ground, and frankly there was massive devastation where the plane hit. The fire burned for over a week and spread throughout much of the building, and the roof did collapse, as you noted. So perhaps had the pentagon been 110 stories tall, the devastation would have been the same as the WTC.

Artegal makes the best point of all. Considering today's media and communications, it would be impossible to cover up a conspiracy of that magnitude. How could tens of thousands of witnesses disappear? There is not 1 shred of evidence to prove that someone other than Al Queda hijackers caused it (I don't consider anything you have said to be proof of a conspiracy. Simply questions raised by a few folks looking at pictures of the Pentagon or the WTC collapsing).

If the U.S. Government did indeed pull off the biggest dupe in the history of the world, the burden of proof is on the people alleging it. It is far more likely that events unfolded as they were described by the media, which had no reason to help Bush cover anything up.