9/11 Pentagon Strike curiosities

Question is...why would they come up with some huge souped up story about a plane hitting if it weren't true, when millions of people saw planes hitting buildings live on tv? Why out of all the things that happened that day would they lie about the one?
Also, how do you explain the people who called from the plane to let them know it had been highjacked? I guess that was a pre recording or something?

has anyone ever checked to see if Langley even has a runway? i don't think the CIA has an airport or air force base on site. oh and the fact that your website is http://www.americanrhetoric.com discredits it entirely.

Billybob Goodliffe already pointed out your use of amercianrhetoric.com as a source, so I won't even touch that one. Thanks Billybob.

There were no fighters available (read: available for immediate deployment) at Andrews. There were at Langley. Pretty simple, really. Keep in mind, the NORAD defense center for the entire Northeast Corridor is based in upstate New York. I don't know where you're getting the idea that Andrews is the "official" airport of the government. Actually, I don't know where you get any of this stuff, because with the exception of your *one* citation, you don't offer anything other than misinformed opinion.

Speaking of citation, here's mine: http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html

People like to toss out phrases like "the airspace over the Pentagon is the most protected airspace in the world!". Sorry, but that's not even remotely true. The Pentagon (as has been stated in other posts in this thread) is on the approach to Reagan International Airport. Commercial airspace, and highly trafficked airspace at that. Hardly super-protected. Restricted, yes, but that's not the same thing at all.

I'm invoking Occam's Razor again. Too many (if not all) of the conspiracy theories are elaborate attempts to explain the situation, while the facts point to a much simpler truth. The whole Langley vs. Andrews issue being a key one.

It's easy to find conspiracies if you look for them. Maybe people should try looking for simplicity in explanation instead.

-S

I did... and it's great...

That is one impressive feat... managing to crash twice like that.

no problem, they don't call me Captain Obvious for nothing

I could have posted the same exact timeline from other sources. But as they are just a list of reported FACTS and not opinions --why bother?

Time of the crash is in question --both those times are reported as the time of the crash, so both those times are listed. With no transponder on, getting an accurate time read of the 93 crash would be impossible.

but you didn't, and why bother? does the term credibility mean anything to you? here read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks the timeline is in the very first paragraph, but i'll summarize for you
plane 1 hit the north tower of the WTC at 8:46 am
plane 2 hit the south tower of the WTC at 9:02 am
plane 3 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am
plane 4 crashed in Penn. at 10:03 am

yeah the whole series of attacks wasn't longer than 2 hours, so 3 hours came from where?

i already said I erred --and that the time from discovery of hijacked planes till Pentagon crash was and hour and a half.

I don't generally accept wikipedia as accurate --but your timeline differs from the one I posted how?

1. its from a source that doesn't have rhetoric in the url.
2. it actually loads, yours all i ever get is "cannot find server"
3. oh and why isn't it accurate? oh yeah its NOT a rhetoric site

whatever you say, Bubba.

LOL Bubba? is that the BEST you can come up with? yes I am a southern male, I do drive a pickup truck,hunt, fish, dip and love watching NASCAR. so whats your point?

Twasn't an airplane, a missle or commuter jet!

It was a UFO!!! Piloted by Bigfoot & Elvis!!!

Elvis from Perfect Dark or "You ain't nothing but a hound dog" Elvis?

Or Elvis from Bubba Hotep?

or my neighbors dog Elvis (I hope it was him, he bit my son last week )

Why would a government lie about weapons of mass destruction? Oooh, remember watergate? Hey!! Don't forget Olie North and his deal. Oh!! Oh!! Remeber the first time the government got in trouble for illegal surveillance?

Yeah... governments are totally honest. We should believe everything without question.

There has certainly been a lot of questionable data passed along regarding the Pentagon attack, and I would certainly love to hear what happened to the rest of the footage security cameras from all of the area took.

I am not saying it wasn't the passenger plane, but I am not saying it was either. It probably was... but with our government... you never really know.

Np point at all. I was under the impression "Bubba" was an affectionate knickname.

depends on the context and the individual referred to, I find it an amusing stereotype nonetheless

one which. of course, you don't perpetuate at all --Billybob

lol i didn't say it wasn't accurate in my case.

It's okay. I play the Snarky Jewish Socialist Brooklyn Lesbian Leftwing Pseudo Intellectual stereotype to a tee!

you said it not me lol just to give you an idea how accurate it is in my case, my middle name is Rhett (Gone with the wind anyone?)

Here's the difference. The *reasons* for those incidents are known. I have repeatedly asked people who believe in crackpot 9/11 theories to come up with a reason the government would lie, or cover up or whatever, and nobody ever does.



At no point did I claim I believe everything without question. But on this issue, now almost 5 years later, I'm quite satisfied that I know what happened based on a) what I saw that day, b) what the news was reporting on that day and the days that followed and c) what has been discovered and reported since then.


-S

*edited*