was the pentagon strike fake? if yes give reasons.?
820371
Yes it was a fake.\nImpossible flight path for a passenger jet\nNo scrambling of fighter planes.\nNo recognisable wreckage.\nHole in wall too small.\nNo reliable witnesses.\nVideo film not released\nBTS statistics atate that flight AA77 didn't fly at all that day.\nNo claims made by passengers families.
1007819
Before US attacked Iraq i was sure it was a terrorist attack committed by AL-Quaeda.After they attacked Iraq i wasn't that sure.\nI saw too "loose changes" and i think u should better see "911 in plane site" it has stronger points.I don't know what to say about WTC but I'm convinced that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane and nothing will ever convinced me that it was.So yes I tend to believe that it was part a conspiracy.
1166933
This video is very compelling evidence that there's a lot more to the events of 9/11 than most people know.  A few of the things in the Loose Change video are inaccurate, but it compiles enough accurate information to lead to further questions.  \n\nTo the people who say things like "this has all been disproven" or "it's just conspiracy theories" you are fooling yourselves.  The famous philospher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident”.  People will believe any lie either because they want it to be true, or because they fear it is true.  The lie you are believing is that the official story of how the events of 9/11 occurred are true.  When you OBJECTIVELY analysis the scientific evidence -- as a detective or scientist would -- without injecting false patriatism into the equation -- you realize that it is simply physically impossible that things happened as we've been led to believe.\nAnd  as a side note, questioning the events of 9/11 is NOT unpatriotic.  On the contrary, it's about the most patriotic thing you can do.  We have a duty to defend this great nation of ours against ALL threats, foriegn AND DOMESTIC.  And the families of the victims of 9/11 have a right to know the TRUTH of how and why their loved ones died.  In that spirit, I present the following very small bits of information concerning the events of 9/11.\n\nYou can’t collapse a skyscraper with jet fuel.\nMany engineers have come forward and said that there’s no way those buildings fell from fire.  Steel doesn’t weaken until almost 2000 degrees F, and it doesn’t melt until almost 3000 degrees F.  Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to do it.\nThe official NIST report states “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)   The final NIST report on the Towers admits:  \n"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."  (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177) \nKevin Ryan, the engineer from the company that underwrote the towers, said it was impossible that a jet fuel fire brought the towers down.  The architect who designed the twin towers has repeatedly said that he designed them to take not 1, but 2, massive passenger airliner impacts and not fall.  \nPools of molten steel were found in the basements of the towers (including tower 7) weeks after 9/11.  Steel melts at 2777 degrees F.  Jet fuel burns at only 1577 degrees F.  It is literally impossible for jet fuel fires to get hot enough to melt steel into molten pools.  Something else must have done it.\n\nFirefighters and survivors said repeatedly that bombs were going off throughout the towers, on many different floors. Firefighters gave very specific descriptions of seeing flashes of light and explosions going off on the lower levels.   If you watch the news from that morning, you'll even see Fox news reporting a "4th explosion" going off in tower 1.   For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox  News anchor reported:   “There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building!  Then another explosion.”\nFirefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:  \n“[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
707317
Yes wreslting fight scences are fake as well. But I must say that you make a pretty good point. A lot of people say that the fight scenes in fighting movies are pretty real. Well actaully to tell you the truth there is only one movie that there was actaully a real fight scene. These people are hired because they wanted to be hired. I find it quiet intersting that most people say that wreslting is real. I have to disagree with them. BUT some inguries are real. Such as Batista. When he went threw his Tricepts sugrey he wanted all his fans to get a closer look at how much pain he went threw when Mark Henry slammed that steel cage door aganist his Tricepts.
797101
Well, the 911 hijackings and terrorists attacks have been declared actions by B.Laden and his supporters.\n\nWith that said, there has since come to light a lot of evidence to support that it was an inside job by 'unknown' government officials. Most suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld.\n\nThere has also been quite a bit of evidence questioning whether or not actual planes hit the Pentagon... but rather it was a bomb.\n\nEither way, at this point, it is pure speculation and I highly doubt we will ever know the truth within our lifetimes.
1053007
yes plenty of them!!! and also the so called terrorist attack on the pentagon also caught on tape but unfortunately the government wont release all the tapes. only one footage was released and it shows absolutely no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon.
1087787
I may not be the brightest bulb on the string, but there are two simple questions that haven't been answered to my satisfaction. \n\nThe first, is had anyone seen the plane as it was headed for the Pentagon? Specifically, anyone on the freeway or nearby roads? Anyone from the nearby hotel? A low flying plane of that size would have made tremendous noise that should have made at least one person look up. I don't remember any stories or news accounts of at least one witness who would be eager to be on TV and talk about such an experience.\n\nSecondly, and I would think this is most important, the quote of the gas station attendant who says the FBI was there "in minutes after the crash" to grab the surveillance tapes. I do need the gentleman's exact definition of minutes, since the difference between two or three, as opposed to 20 or 30 would make or break the argument for conspiracy. I would fully expect the FBI to gather every piece of evidence available in the quickest manner, since at the time of the crash, the "who dunnit" list was supposedly wide open. However, if agents were gathering information literally minutes after the crash, that would raise and wave wildly every red flag. \n\nEven if the argument was made that the Pentagon was a foreseeable target, and agents were in place, why weren't non-essential employees in the Pentagon directed to areas of safety? \n\nThe Secretary of Defense was in the building, during a national emergency. If it was prudent to have FBI agents at the ready to seize video of an air assault on the Pentagon from a gas station, why was the Secretary, 6th in line to the throne, left to sit in his office, venerable to attack?  \n\nDedication to office? Nope...I just don't see that happening. Job and status guaranteed for 8 years? Might have been a gamble he offered to take...\n\nIt would explain why he didn't fall on his sword and resign, at the very least, to uphold the honor that is expected of anyone in command of the military after so many false claims of easy victory in Iraq.
12381
The Airforce gave two conflicting statements. Only one of them, if any, could have been true, but it is possible that the other statement was a honest error rather than an outright lie. You choose which one...
537166
The Pentagon was hit by a plane on 9/11, bud, so try reading a paper occasionally.\n\nThe 'proof' about the Pentagon conspiracy theory is based mainly on one ambiguous photo of the damage done to the building after the plane hit. This is mostly the work of a French journalist Thierry Meyssan who wrote the book 9/11: The Big Lie soo after it happened.
31982
Yes. Anything you may have seen to the contrary was probably due to an April Fools joke than ran on a spoof of the CNN website.
616775
I have seen several of the conspiracy theory films and they do make me think.\n\nThey insist that the WTC buildings one and two had to have explosive charges placed in them like a controlled demo for them to come down as fast as they did.\n\nThey show, and you can see, puffs of smoke coming out of windows floors below the floors collapsing.  Is this really PROOF that there were explosive charges.  You do not see any flashes with the puffs of smoke.\n\nThey show other tall building fires where they fires lasted longer and the buildings did not collapse.  But in the WTC collapses there were gigantic planes that hit and did a lot of structural damage.  There was also jet fuel that created the fires.  There was a tremendous amount of weight suspended above where the planes hit.  I remember thinking that it was amazing that the buildings did not fall down.  Of course, later they did.\n\nA few years ago (before 9/11/01) there was a 10 floor building being built in Bridgeport CT. There was a construction accident on one of the upper floors and the weight of what fell just massively overwhelmed the support below.  The whole building fell to the ground just like a controlled demo, just like the WTC towers.  There was no bomb, no plane hitting the building, no fire.\n\nI think that there was a lot of damage on the floors where the planes hit.  All it would take would be for one floor to fail and everything above it drops and hits the floor below.  Imagime how much weight that is.  It only gets heavier as it goes.\n\nStill, how the planes and bodies at the Pentagon and in PA completely vaporized makes you wonder.  One film says that flight 93 went to Cleveland and all the passangers were taken off the plane and that even the cell phone calls were fakes.  They do not say what happened to the real passangers after.  Were they all shot?\n\nA lot of the conspiricy theories have as many holes as the supposed cover ups.  Their idea of proof is often pretty lame.
1163400
considering that one of the first things i saw on the page said, "Proof Blue Screen Technology Faked 2nd Plane "  i know its crap.\ni'm tired of writing about the 911 conspiracy stuff and these conspiracy ideas floating around right now are just getting more and more outrageous.  are there some questions that need to be answered about 911? yes probably are a few....but these questions have NOTHING to do with: now blue screened planes, planes swapped secretly for missiles and drones, faked plane crashes, secret voice sampled passengers to fake phone calls home, secret landing fields, breakaway light poles, hundreds to thousands of planted "witnesses" and fake work crews planting explosives.\nthis stuff is either some strange disinformation campaign, or someone trying to make a buck off people who don't trust the government and can't think.
1163343
obviously all these naysayers have seen photographic evidence of the plane on the pentagon lawn, espescially the TWO 6 foot wide, 8 ton, titanium engines lying right there in plain view.\noh i forgot they were VAPORIZED, sure they were. and gnomes re-sodded the lawn in the few minutes before the press arrived.
238713
Men landed on moon during the times of space age race between Russia and USA. If it were a fraud, Russia would have been on top of it to bring it up. So, I guess it was confirmed that man really did land on moon and got rock samples back to earth. So i think it really happened. It can't be fraud. Ofcourse there is this talk about pictures taken by astronauts in moon that looks fake and all...but there are equally positive proofs of video and pictures taken on moon too. If you ask me, i think it is real.
241417
Yes of course they are hiding what they know..truly..if they did not know of them..there would be a lot more tension military wise in regard to so many thousands of sightings. The government would not take it as lightly..that is the most obvious fact.\nI can say they are real because I have seen them all my life..I know that we ...are not alone.
1029928
Several people have written books trying to disprove our landing on the moon.  I have not actually researched this, but for one thing, supposedly there is no dust on the moon like the ton of dust our astraunats walked through that day.  The photos have been disputed as made up and I believe our corupt government is capable of pulling this off.....)(
556651
The buildings looked like they were professionally demoed. Plus, some of the people questioning the matter have been killed in accidents or murders. \n\nI don't know if Bush himself knew about it or not, but I find the whole thing suspicious. Plus, there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. No wings, no footage from security cameras. But then the question is if it wasn't the plane that hit, where's the plane with all of those passengers? Also, what did explode at the Pentagon? I heard on the news at first that it was a truck bomb, then it was changed.\n\nbradsgranny, Bush has said he wasn't interested in Osama's whereabouts since the Iraq invasion.