If he is, then he’s GW 1.0, since according to conspiracy theorists he’s the only retired high ranking ex-CIA official to not die under “mysterious circumstances.”
FYI, at least two earlier threads on this topic, here and here. For my money, the best commentary on the issue I’ve yet seen is still this one.
Decided to do a quick search. Not exhaustive, but a few more threads: Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy theory, Missile hitting the Pentagon, WTC Conspiracy Theory and Bush 9/11 movie, must read/see.
This video (shot at my work, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division) shows why I believe the airliner hit the pentagon, and not a missile.
Additionally, I don’t know of any missiles that would have burrowed through to the inner rings (after the initial explosion as seen in the limited released video/stills) as the conspiracy theorists like to say. A missile would have impacted on the outer ring, causing a much different damage pattern than what happened.
Not a single one of those links worked.
Oops. Had modified the URLs to take out the search terms. Worked on preview (pretty sure). Hopefully this’ll work (this time, tested in preview for sure): Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy theory, Missile hitting the Pentagon, WTC Conspiracy Theory and Bush 9/11 movie, must read/see.
I need some ammunition agasint the conspiracy nut I mentioned earlier. Anyone care to pick apart The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001 (“official fairy tale” according to the nut)?
Man, of all the boards I’ve visited I probably have to hate this bunch of people the most. You are an arrogant bunch.
So let’s just look at the Pentagon for a moment. A 747 disappeared into a hole 16 feet in diameter, the lawn, cable spools on the ground, windows surrounding this hole were undamaged? The plane punched through a combined 9 feet of reinforced concrete wall? No roaring fire from the 5,000 gallons of fuel? The 16 foot hole is my main point. Explain to me how this plane evaporated into this hole.
You’ve been inside a plane, right? You do know they’re hollow, right? With places to sit, walk around, etc? A plane is a mostly air, with a thin metal shell around it, it’s not a solid hunk of metal. How much material do you expect to be left after the plane smashes through a wall into an office building? Do you expect most of the plane to bounce off the Pentagon wall? Most of the plane ended up INSIDE the Pentagon.
UMMM, the engines are solid metal. They would have impact those windows we can plainly see undamaged on the outside of the Pentagon. What are those things made out of? Titanium? Yep. Am I to believe the engines stopped dead in their tracks, moved backwards folding up inside the plane, and then all of it just started this snake-thing all the way through 9 feet of reinforced concrete wall? And then evaporated all into thin air so that firefighters would say they didn’t see any evidence of a plane crash?
A video of with lots of that good stuff called evidence about what happened to the WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333
A short, dramatic Flash video about what happened to the Pentagon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333
I’ve been fighting ignorance since 2003, and one thing I’ve learned is that it tends to act like a stupid, disobedient mule. It never listens or pays attention to the evidence.
No, they aren’t. At the very least, they have to have compression chambers that allow the passage of air. And when speeds of up to 500 knots are involved, all kinds of crazy ricochets can happen.
Anyway, we’re arrogant, you hate us, etc. etc…
Go look at the video in the link I posted. It shows what happens when a fighter plane traveling 500 miles an hour hits a concrete wall (not reinforced, just concrete). Given the larger mass and weight of a 757, I would think the damage is consistent with a 757 hitting the a wall designed to withstand nuclear blasts (not to mention that entire section of the Pentagon had recently been upgraded with even more reinforcing).
As far as the windows are concerned, they were designed to withstand a nuclear blast (and since the Pentagon would have been ground zero for several nuclear explosions, I’m assuming that’s some pretty heavy duty engineering). I don’t know about the cable spools, since I don’t know where they were in relation to the impact, but from the pictures I’ve seen, they were fire-damaged.
The lawn, I haven’t read the official reports vs. the conspiracy theories in-depth enough to say anything about.
But, since you don’t believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, what do you believe hit it? A missile? Considering where I work, I’m probably a better authority than you about what the effects of a cruise missile would be (and I’m no expert). A Global Hawk? Doesn’t go fast enough. A Global Hawk filled with explosives? Again, the damage pattern would have been different.
The onus isn’t on us to prove that a 757 hit, it’s on you to disprove it.
By the way, considering that his first version was so filled with inaccuracies and wild speculation that he had to come out with “Loose Change v2.0”, don’t you think you should come up with a more credible source?
The lawn around the helipad, which is what the 757 hit first, was definitely damaged. I had to walk past there on my way home that day.
That is because we already did bother to check those theories many times before, and in reality the arrogance is coming from some conspiracy theorists, news must be very slow among 9/11 conspiracy theorists: many have concluded that hanging to the missile theory does damage to the movement:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
Not true. http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/10.jpg besides it was not a 747.
Not true either http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/5.jpg
A video clip from a security camera showed that indeed there was. I do think the pentagon, besides its own firefighter units, has internal ways to deal with fires; that is why it was quickly put under control.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html
Oh really?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
And if a 9/11 conspiracy theorist can drop the Pentagon trap, can you?
And I from 2001.
One thing I learned a long time ago: conspiracy theorists do pay attention.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
Sometimes.
Not that it looks like you’ll be back but…as others have said, it wasn’t a 747, it wasn’t a 16 foot diameter hole, there was plenty of other damage…and even smoke and fire. I’ve seen photos of parts of the plane found at the site…so it didn’t ‘evaporate into this hole’ either (I can find cites if necessary…can you find any cites from credible sources saying there were no aircraft parts found at the Pentagon?). How do you account for all those errors…or do you?
I have NEVER understood this part of the conspiricy. I mean, as if its not implausable enough that the US government setup 9/11, brought down the buildings with explosives, etc…but disbelieving that an aircraft hit the Pentagon? Where does this kind of stuff come from? And why don’t we have a tinfoil smiley yet…you’d think after the 100th iteration of this same stupid theme we’d have on by now! 
-XT
Already been provided, by me.
…and GIGO but his link is kinda hard to spot.