Why don't you try to explain away a couple of these, Kitty Kat...

Is this a "missle-sized hole"?


I thought you conspiracy addicts claim that there was no debris around the Pentagon.


Tiny, tiny little hole, isn't it? I mean, this looks consistent with a small single-engine plane crashing into the Pentagon, right?

You freakin moron. How thick to you have to be? Here:



As for your photos:

Are you stupid or are you just completely ignorant of what happened to the Pentagon? The whole was small, and that section of the building then collapsed. You are showing the collapsed photos.

As for the piece of debris you show, indeed that is evidence that I should consider. But I should also consider the fact that its a small piece as opposed to the absense of a large piece of a large plane.

If a missile hit the pentagon, should there have been debris of that?? No, because when it hits the pentagon at much faster speeds, it disintegrates easier.

missile...plane...if either hit the pentagon, it would most likely disintegrate.

Also, for no one to witness a person carrying debris out of a plane to cover up the missile attack...is just insane.

A plane hit the pentagon, not a missile.

Your picture, and your theory, have been pounded into the ground and shown to be fallacious, wishful thinking.

Logic 101 would be a good class for you to take there at OSU.

Does my response make sense to anyone??

The liberal minded students at the University usually opt to take the class further down the hall... Conspiracy Theories 101 (also known as Tin Hats 101).

Only to those of us who are NOT blindly determined that there was a government set-up and conspiracy. To us, it makes too much sense.

To the Leftists, they simply cannot imagine it anyway - so you're talking to a brick wall when trying to reason with them.

I noticed no replies to my post, so I was hoping that it did ring a bell in their head that maybe, just maybe, he has a point.

That's asking too much. Really, it is.

I see your point, but unfortunately it is incompatible with the aftermath as seen in these photographs. In fact it would only help support a missile theory which I personally don't even agree with. Missile debris don't necessarily disintegrate because of faster speeds...but because of the fact that there is much less to the hull and because it's an explosive and that's kind of the point. It's practically impossible for the entire plane to disintegrate, exterior and interior and everything, and yet leave the rooms, tables and papers that are exposed rather unscathed.

The only thing I agree with is that we don't know all of the truth, and if we did, then the government wouldn't have anything to fear in releasing surveillance video that would have had a perfect view of what ever hit the pentagon, from the nearby hotel.

Could it have been possible that that small piece on the lawn was planted before the strike? Just a thought...plus I don't think everyone is going to pay attention to what every person is doing...they'd probably pay attention to the wound in the Pentagon. Even so you bring up a good point. However, there seems to be conflicting evidence; there are high levels of radiation at the impact site, including traces of depleted uranium (High Ranking Army Officers/Radiation Experts: Missile at Pentagon).

Again, I don't claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11 as I was not there, so I'm not going to make a bold claim as you have done. But I do believe that something other than a missile hit it, but what I know is that there is enough evidence to reopen investigations; because we obviously don't know all of the truth.

I also thank you for actually posing a debate as opposed to only mindless insults like what Jefferson has to offer.