Alright, sorry guys...

[Warp_2567]

I'm really not a non-believer, HOWEVER, I do believe that a plane hit the pentagon and not some missile or whatever. I too, think that the U.S govt. had something to do with all of this mess, but only to a certain extent! So, I'm sorry that I made you guys think of me differently. I just have some of my own beliefs and suspicions about 9/11.

[ian neal]

No need to apologise at all even if you were a 'non-believer'. I guess I assumed that you were that's all and so my posts relate in general about how we should engage with our critics

Ian

[Pikey]

Hi WARP 2567,

I have read your posts on the website and cant really understand your purpose of visiting the site or were your coming from.

If you are a truthseeker then I think that you need some help and guidance here on the events of 911 because if having seen the compelling evidence you believe that the official version that flight 77, a Boeing 757 plane went into the Pentagon then I think you have problem.

Have you seen the dvds "Loose change", "In plane site- the directors cut"
or even better have you read the bible on 911 "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin"?

If your answer to the above questions is "no" I can understand why you are a non believer. The purpose of the 911 Truth campaign is to connect to open minds. Analyse the information it is presenting, refer to the above info sources and then address the following questions in sequential order:-

1. Do I believe the official version of the events of 911 as presented by the US & UK government and global media?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes then why waste your time further visiting this website unless you can offer us "911 sceptics" info or evidence which shows that the official version is NOT the conspiracy theory (the response to this issue from the ptb remains one of silence! hence the objective of the campaign to secure a full professional INDEPENDENT inquiry) ?

3. If the the answer to (1) is no then ask yourself why does the official version have to be a lie?

If having answered no to question 1 then the big question is what are you going to do about it, or as David VonKleist bluntly puts it in "IPS- the directors cut" "where is your line in the sand"

As far as I am concerned those who answer "no" to question 1 and do nothing further other than bury their heads in the sand are in effect allies of those responsible for 911.

In my eyes, the 911 Truth campaign and this website is to facilitate and unite those who believe in justice, freedom and that truth conquers all.
That is the reason why I joined the campaign and contribute to this website.

I look forward to seeing you support the petition on this website WARP 2567 (by the way whats the significance in that pseudonymn?)

Love, light, truth & peace

“A small body of determined spirits fired up by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”
Mahatma Gandhi

[Warp_2567]

[Dstevo]

i'm going to kick myself for replying to this, but here goes:

Warp, you say the wings and tail simpy "broke off", Where are they then? Think about this, each wing holds about 9 tonnes of engine, they aren't made of plastic bags and stuck on with blutac! And 2 wings, 2 engines, the body of the plane,and the tail fitted into that nice neat little hole?

This website was the first to say there was no plane:

http://webplaza.pt.lu/strasjkl/pentagon.html
See if you can find any evidence.

It seems you are also pinning all your arguments on The Pentagon being hit or not being hit by a plane. Even if it was hit by a plane that doesn't explain why they haven't shown the actual footage, just a few dodgy clips with the wrong date stamped on them!

No-one here to my knowledge has speculated about what hit The Pentagon, just most are in agreement that from what we've seen there is no apparant evidence of it, that doesn't mean it didn't, it just means we haven't been shown HARD evidence that it did.
But what about all the other evidence? The Towers "collapse" and WTC7 being "pulled" are the most compelling pieces of evidence, that shows not just prior knowledge, that smacks of outright involvement!

Have you actually watched any of the DVD's on the subject? Because if you have you must have done with your eyes closed and ear plugs in!

[Pikey]

Thats an ouststanding response Dstevo! Well done comrade!

Anyone who wishes to come on this website and do some truthseeking on the events of 911 is, IMO, welcome! This website is after all a learning resource centre for discovering the truth of 911.

Please read "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin WARP, then you will see the illusion of the official version supplied by the ptb.

No a civilian plane, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, the compelling evidence on the dvds which I reffered you to clearly proves that. Sadly you never indicated if you had viewed these dvds WARP!

If you can provide photo evidence that a plane did hit the Pentgon you can win £2,000. For further details go to www.911truthBristol.com. As far as I am aware the prize money remains unclaimed!

[mason-free party]

eh Warpy...what happened to all the jet fuel?..don't tell me it was running on empty...lol!...back to the drawing board laddie!

[Justin]

[Spectre]

[Warp_2567]

[Warp_2567]

[Dstevo]

[paul wright]

[Alan Firminger]

Let's not waste bandwidth and time.

[Warp_2567]

[markburdge]

I'm a new believer having read both the UK and Us websites and seen the DVD. (Can't say I'm very surprised either!!)

The pentagon evidence is pretty conclusive, but there is one thing I haven't seen discussed on any forums.

What about passengers on the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon. Surely there must be some grieving relatives etc.???

Can someone point me to any thread / imformation about this topic which I think would help to cement the argument.

Thanks

[paul wright]

[Spectre]

[uselesseater]

As with the 'pods' argument I don't think the 'pentagon plane' is something the truth movement should focus on. There is not much to go on, just some photographs no telling statements in the press or by the pentagon etc.

I think it's possible that the seisure of the tapes was to create a straw man. Intelligence services will create multiple straw men to confuse those looking for the truth.

If it was a plane what was wrong with the missile automated defence system and why terrorists who could barely fly would go to the effort of pulling of the difficult manouver of turning the plane through 180 degrees when they could have just flown the plane into the bit where rumsfeld was.

Visual evidence like the pods and the pentagon damage is a bit flimsy I think. Better to concentrate on what people have said on the record and in the press. The administrations explanations expose their lies.

[Alan Firminger]

Hitting the back of the Pentagon can be explained by assuming that genuine hijackers navigated close, possibly with a handheld GPS. But they only saw the building when they were alongside it. The Pentagon would be hard to find compared to the WTC.
So they recognised their limitations and made a wide turn, assume that they were content to hit the building.
I write this not to destroy the argument because it is impossible for a big aeroplane to disappear into the mousehole.
Simply the fact that the backside was hit is explicable and so is not relevant to this.

[Graham]