In all honesty, those pictures are really nothing a good Photoshop master couldn't whip up. Id still like to read more though, too bad I don't speak French.
More: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html http://www.public-action.com/911/rescue/nfpa.html http://www.wanttoknow.info/911coverup10pg http://www.serendipity.li/wot/fake_opposition.htm If the links aren't "reputable" enough for your liking, what can I say, the mainstream media won't touch it (not that the mainstream media is anymore reputable than some of the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists). Nobody is claiming that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, but seeing pictures combined with other evidence, you at least have to wonder if a plane really did hit the Pentagon. But let me ask you this: exactly what that your government tells you do you think is reputable, in percentage terms? 50%? 75%? 100%? Frankly, I think anyone who buys into what their government says is every bit as naive as a person who buys into every conspiracy theory they read, without doing further reading and research into it.
This "spot the boeing" site is quite old and the points it raises have already been addressed by snopes. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Your snopes article duly scrutinised and addressed... http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/eyewitness-accounts-flight77.htm
Actually, it doesn't duly scrutinise or address snopes, it merely goes to absurd lengths to discredit the eyewitness accounts alone. For example, one report says "Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military." According to your source, this is not an eyewitness account because the author said Aydan saw the impact, but did not quote Aydan saying "I saw the impact". By applying this sort of logic to every eyewitness account, your source concludes that there are no "reliable" eyewitness accounts of the 757 striking the Pentagon. Similarly, if someone says they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, they didn't say they saw an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon, so this is "suspicious". If they say they saw "it" hit the Pentagon, they we should be suspicious as to whether "it" means an airplane at all. Now for sheep like LickHERish, the very fact that someone has posted this nonsense on a website makes it true. For other, higher standards might apply.
Ah yes, but for neo-con sheep like like PB who will call any website which details the logical ineptitude of the mainstream spin machinery and its reinforcement of the preferred "groupthink" mentality, "anonymous", he once again shows his slant by quoting "snopes" as an end all and be all source. No, that's not "anaonymous" by your skewed definition of things. lol. Youre an intellectual hack who does exactly what O'Reilly does, grab random snippets and presume he has discredited an otherwise homogenous argument. Gee, the tv news and papers all presented these handy (if rather generalised)accounts so it MUST be true, let's dare not dig deeper and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Truly pathetic! But as you accuse Moore so often of doing, let's examine the furth indictment against the particular citation upon which you choose to base your dismissal... But for the PB mentality it must be true because it gave a name! Such a person couldn't possibly be the fabrication of the writer himself, nooooo. Given the demonstrable predelection of mainstream media to simply report whatever it is told is so by "official sources" (often unnamed) rather than undertaking any legitimate investigative effort to confirm and verify facts (thus the numerous cases of subsequent forced retractions on a plethora of claims made in these past three years), its far more plausible that the bulk of officially claimed "eyewitnesses" are far from credible.
Well..If a Boeing F77 Commercial airline jet hit the Pentagon it would have killed everyone in the plane. It shouldn't be that hard to verify the validity of the governments statements on this. There would be a lot of dead people, and people have families. Is it even possible for our government to make up a flight, and a plane?
Jeez, Lick and Pointbreak are already turning this thread into a pissing match. Now my opinon might be biased since I'm naturally not inclined to believe everything every crackjob website tells me, but I think it's a little ridiculous to think that the government planned the 9/11 attacks. Regardless of how "truthful" you think Snopes is, it does provide a realistic debunking of that Find the Boeing thing. Trying to discredit eyewitness accounts that were never brought up in the first place is kind of dumb. Plus, how do we know the author of that article didn't selectively post only the accounts that could easily be picked apart?
Well Max, when you sit and assess the entirety of the official line and its many glaringly inconsistent and implausible facets as well as its repercussions for long planned policies, which were launched without any delay (along with the very rhetorical claims which have been systematically debunked one by one as this perpetual war mindset has been playing itself out on the world stage) perhaps you might just begin to see the need for more than a Congressional whitewash. We've been fed the groupthink myth of our "goodguy" government for so many generations that of course it is hard to break free and consider such terrible possibilities, but the nature of power politics is dirtier than you can imagine and Washington has perpetrated much evil around the globe in my lifetime alone and long before.
