ok,,im not a conspiracy theorist but im prepared to listen,, but this intrigues me?

Question

if it was a missile that hit the pentagon on 9-11 then what happened to the plane that supposedly hit it? and if it was a missile ,,,what does it acheive?

Answer 1

As long as a conspiracy theorist can work it out in his/her own head, it's Gospel. It was a plane that hit the Pentagon. People don't have to believe it, but ask someone who was an eye witness...they report time and time again it was a passenger jet.

Answer 2

There is overwhelming evidence that it was a passenger jet. Just because they don't have a nice clear color video a-la WTC (NYC) doesn't deny the fact. But I get the feeling that if there were no videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers there would be some who would say that it didn't happen like it did and they were hit by military missiles! But back to the Pentagon. There are the logs of the air traffic controllers, radar records, eyewitnesses around DC -- all sorts of records. You could even check with the airline and confirm that the plane has never been seen since.

And there are the official records of the deaths of all those passengers. Do you 'disappear' that many ordinary citizens? Including children? Has even one of them or even a single family member or friend ever come foward to say that such-and-such a passenger is still alive and in hiding somewhere? No -- and believe me, if such a claim was made and the person was found the repercussions would be huge.

There would be no point in firing a missile at the Pentagon. The risks of such an action would be incredible and it would be impossible to cover up. Okay, not impossible. That's too strong a word. But if such a thing was to happen and those who ordered it were eventually exposed they would be up on charges of treason at the very least.

But just to knock this 'missile' thing on the head, consider the images from the checkpoint security camera. (There are, of course, some who claim that these images are faked. True. They could have been faked, but given the technology available these days, don't you think they would have done a better job?) What do we see in these images? We see a large, whitish object moving towards the building in a couple of frames, then we see the explosion. Clearly, something struck the building. (That doesn't prove it caused the explosion, a Sherlock Holmes would point out -- and quite rightly -- but to clobber the building with a large, low-flying object and then detonate explosives inside the structure is utterly absurd. If you're going to hit it with a missile you'd be a total idiot not to have an armed warhead in it.)

How do we know it was not a military missile? (Note that I say 'military'. For the purists, almost any object travelling through the air at speed can be deemed a missile. An arrow is a missile, so is a rock if you throw it. So to obviate anyone pointing out that a plane itself used in this way is a missile per se, I just thought I'd mention that. For 'missile' from now on, read 'military weapon capable of being launched and used for the purpose of attack or defense.' All happy? Good. Let's get on with this.)

If a missile were fired at the building it would have to be a damned big one to compare to the object that appears in those images. Aside from ultra-long-range missiles, there is nothing that big carried by US warplanes. A fighter jet couldn't get a missile that big off the ground. That's one point. The second point is that air-to-ground missiles travel at an incredibly high velocity -- much faster than a low-flying, incoming passenger jet. This means that the thing might just conceiveably be captured as a smallish blur on a single frame of video, but that's all.

Ergo: Not a missile but a plane. (See my note above about 'missiles' if you are confused or still arguing.)

I am not an American. I watched that day's events unfold from where I live in the middle of Europe and I am able to consider it without a Rep or Dem or any other political bias. Conspiracy theories surround almost every major event, especially if there are political implications. Some people simply don't want to accept the truth.

Now let's sit back and watch the arguments from people who CANNOT see what are obviously the facts.

Answer 3

It was a plane. I was less than a quarter mile away and watched it go in. We evacuated our building just a few minutes later and you could see people's clothes and things blowing around in the big fire cloud, stuff from their luggage, and you couldn't smell anything over the reek of jet fuel burning. The way the Pentagon is built---- it's not one single building, it's five, with a common center and each building further away from the center than the one before it. The plane went all the way through the two buildings closest to the street and partway through the third. It was too far inside the building to be able to see it from the street unless you were right in front of it.

Answer 4

Yeah, the videos don't show a plane. Of that I'm sure. The rest...wooo hoo. I have no idea. I'm just crossing my fingers. I do video for a living and I can tell ya though...at least they could have thrown up a still shot if they wanted to show a plane, ya know? Gimme a frame of the plane, just a frame....

Safe to say if you send a missile into your own country, you're a nut and who gives a good goddamn what you hope to achieve.

Answer 5

Yes, it was a missile. I catered planes, and that was not a plane. Hole is too small and no fuselage wreckage. No light posts knocked down in the supposed flight path. No my friends, it was the US government.

Answer 6

Absolute nonsense and even if no not even if Ben Ladens Media rumour Mill is working overtime lately he relized finaly the thounge is mightier the the Sword.
Take care!

Answer 7

The 'missile' was a fuselage. Like any ongoing investigation, if I gotta splain it, you wouldn't understand.
+2!



oh yeah, Y. A. H. ;-| !

Answer 8

perhaps it is sitting on the bottom of the ocean so far out that it will never be found?