http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

There is a video on Youtube of a newscast that claims to be "live in new york with a view of Building #7 behind the news girl. She is reporting that Building 7 had already collapsed.

So they were either lying about being live in New York in front of a view of the buildings or they got an advanced report about building 7 going down.

I suspect they were probably standing in front of a pre-recorded video of the building before #7 actually collapsed.

In any case, it demonstrates how their "news" is just some sort of production.

Metalwing,

If the videos of the planes were real and live, and not computer generated.... they still do not prove what planes were hitting the towers. The planes cannot be identified. They could have easily been drones with missiles. Indeed, a flash of light was recorded before the plane made contact with the building in many of the videos. That particular plane could not be identified as the ones they claim were hijacked from the videos.

I just hope our real enemies who pose a military threat never try to do a preemptive strike using hijacked airplanes as a disguise for a nuclear missile.

Also, did no one find this interesting?

This is copied and pasted. The link is included at the bottom if you want to check it out.

Given this information, I would again say, that it would be logical to say that the videos of planes hitting the Towers are not evidence that proves the official account of 9-11, and does not prove the Official 9-11 account because those videos are not even clear enough to be able to actually identify the planes..... EVEN IF THEY ARE REAL LIVE VIDEOS.

No video evidence..... even if something did fly into the towers

and..

According to the official story an American Airlines Boeing 767 took off from Logan International in Boston as Flight AA 11, was hijacked by Arab terrorists, and was flown into the North Tower of the WTC. But since Flight AA 11 did not exist on September 11, 2001, this assertion cannot be true. (See below for evidence of that.)

According to the official story an American Airlines Boeing 757 took off from Dulles International in Washington DC as Flight AA 77, was hijacked by Arab terrorists, and was flown into the Pentagon. But since AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001, this assertion cannot be true. (see below for evidence of that.)

Consequently the official story, put out by the Bush Administration on September 11, 2001, and maintained without change for over four years now, is false. Arab hijackers could not have hijacked Flights AA 11 and AA 77, and crashed them into WTC1 and the Pentagon, because those flights did not exist. All the talk of Arab hijackers armed with box cutters and intent on the destruction of the Twin Towers must have been a concoction, a hoax, designed to cover up what really happened on 9/11, and, of course, to conceal the identity of the real perpetrators of this atrocity, in which about 3000 people were killed.





********************************************************************

According to the official story of what happened on September 11, 2001, four commercial jetliners were hijacked by Arab terrorists, two of them were flown into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center and a third was flown into the Pentagon. This article presents evidence obtained from US-government-supplied records whose implication is that this cannot be true.

The four commerical jetliners allegedly departed from the airports, and with the flight numbers, shown below:

Airport location Name Flight no.

Newark, NJ Newark Liberty International UA 93
Boston, MA Logan International UA 175
Boston, MA Logan International AA 11
Washington, DC Dulles International AA 77


To follow the reasoning of this article the reader is requested to go to that page and select "Scheduled departure time".

Select the "Newark, NJ" airport, then "United Airlines", then "September 10, 2001" (not 11). We find that UA 93, bound for San Francisco, was scheduled to depart at 08:00, and that the tail number of the plane assigned to this flight was N570UA.

Now do the same for "September 11, 2001" and we find the same, except that the tail number of the plane assigned was N591UA.

Now go back to the page on "Departure Statistics" and select "Actual departure time". Selecting airport, airline and dates as above we find that UA 93 departed at 7:57 on September 10th and at 8:01 on September 11th.

We can do the same for all of the flights listed in the table above. The results (where, for a tail number, "UNKNOW" is the BTS entry presumably meaning "unknown") are:

Date Flight no. Destination Scheduled
departure Tail no. Actual
departure

Sept. 10 UA 93 San Francisco 8:00 N570UA 7:57
Sept. 11 UA 93 San Francisco 8:00 N591UA 8:01
Sept. 10 UA 175 Los Angeles 8:00 N618UA 7:59
Sept. 11 UA 175 Los Angeles 8:00 N612UA 7:58
Sept. 10 AA 11 Los Angeles 7:45 N321AA 7:41
Sept. 11 AA 11 Los Angeles 7:45 UNKNOW 0:00
Sept. 10 AA 77 Los Angeles 8:10 N632AA 8:09
Sept. 11 AA 77 Los Angeles 8:10 UNKNOW 0:00

So according to this information Flights AA 11 and AA 77 were scheduled on September 11. One might wonder, however, why there are no tail numbers for the scheduled flights.

If planes were assigned to those flights then the tail numbers would be known in advance of September 11, but the tail numbers are listed as "unknown". And if those flights actually occurred, why are the entries for actual departure time given as "0:00"?


So according to this information Flights AA 11 and AA 77 were scheduled on September 11. One might wonder, however, why there are no tail numbers for the scheduled flights. If planes were assigned to those flights then the tail numbers would be known in advance of September 11, but the tail numbers are listed as "unknown". And if those flights actually occurred, why are the entries for actual departure time given as "0:00"?

But, more importantly, this information is not what was originally given on the BTS website. Up until sometime in 2004 queries to the BTS database returned different information. The results of these queries were reported by Gerard Holmgren in November 2003 and later updated here. [This page has now, January 2012, disappeared.]

Others who read his report saved the relevant BTS pages directly from the BTS website. They were previously discussed in an article on this website by the present author (Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11) and since April 2005 they have been available for downloading via:


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/bts.zip
But as of January 2006 most 9/11 researchers apparently remain unaware of this data, so it seems that it is necessary to discuss it in more detail, and make explicit what it implies.

Let us see what the original BTS webpages have to say. Click on the links below to see copies (saved in November 2003) of the "Departure Statistics" pages for September 11, 2001, for United Airlines flights and for American Airlines flights at the relevant airports:


UA: Newark, NJ — Newark International
UA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Washington, DC — Washington Dulles International

From which we obtain:

Date Flight no. Destination Scheduled
departure Tail no. Actual
departure
Sept. 11 UA 93 San Francisco 8:00 N591UA 8:01
Sept. 11 UA 175 Los Angeles 8:00 N612UA 7:58
Sept. 11 AA 11 No record exists
Sept. 11 AA 77 No record exists

Thus for September 11, 2001, and for Flights UA 93 and UA 175, the destination, tail number and departure time are the same as that given above.

But for Flights AA 11 and AA 77 the situation is totally different — these flights are not scheduled at all. The implication is that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001.

Thus the records for the diversion (alleged hijacking) of UA 93 and UA 175 were removed from the BTS database.

This was presumably done to disguise the fact that although, in the original database, there were records for the diversion of UA 93 and UA 175, there were none for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77.

The reason why there were no records for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77 is that these flights did not exist.


******************************************************************







http://serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

Or it's a fake video. Link it if it's real.

Its real, but find it for yourself. I was talking to msharmony anyway.

It has been linked to before if you haven't seen it then you haven't been paying attention.

BESTINSHOW, a liar is always a liar, who often lies with some truth to make the lie convincing. "Conspiracy Theory" is now the new way to undermine the "truthers". Conspiracy Theory is the new boogieman. To undermine dialogue and attempt to stifle or ridicule the desire to question and quiet dessent, " conspiracy theory" is now a tag used to labal truthers as unpatriotic and paranoid irrational crackpots. The power of labeling has a historical strategic influence on the subliminal mechanics of thinking in todays society. George Orwell 1984 clearly illistrate the effect of stifling thinking, and not question. Very powerful questions posed by your post, yet the answers are what truly is disturbing.

hmmm, unpatriotic and paranoid irrational crackpots?...
well you said it, I didn't!



At least everyone agrees on the basic facts that the planes were
hijacked by al-Qaeda and flown full of passengers and fuel into
the World Trade Center towers in a successful terrorist attack
killing thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah and
radical Islamic bigotry.

The rest is just piddling details but no one in their right mind
would question those basic evidence facts concerning the attacks.

um.... no, hardly anyone "agrees" on that fantasy.


What world are you living in?

...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.

Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...
by John Ray

Grinded to a halt? Really?

I don't think so. People have made up their minds and they now know what they are dealing with. A corrupt systsem and state sponsored terrorism.

They don't trust the government and most people just feel there is not much they can do about it except arm themselves and brace for the fall of the empire or the next major crisis.

People are buying guns, stocking food, growing their own gardens, raising chickens, planning their get away, moving from the big cities etc.

If you are not doing any of those things, you will be one of the clueless people who get a rude awakening when the schit hits the fan.

Grinned to a hault. lol. Gerardo Rivera came out and declared himself a truther.

Not I, I never believe the goverment, ever!! Anyone in their right mind should always question goverment, and when they answer you, check it, then check it again, goverments have a natural inclination to lie to its people.

The evidence is overwhelming. It has nothing to do with what any
government says. Planes full of passengers, video of the
hijackers, money and document trail to al-Qaida, confessions and
bragging by the hijackers, destroyed WTC towers, thousands
killed...such facts don't lie.



No amount of nonsensical side arguments negates any of the
evidence. No amount of governmental lying covers any of that up!!

No unsupported Conspiracy Theories will make it go away.

You say you "educate' people
Do you mean you try to brainwash people into your way of thinking

It was such a terrible event. I was child watching it here in the UK and it was truly heart breaking

I think it was the savages that boarded the planes that are totally responsible and their hench men etc

I cannot believe that even Bush would stoop that low.

I think that day will, and always should be remembered, but I also think the "conspiracy theorists' (and thats what they are)
should let the dead rest and let their family's grieve

You won't find any of us that say questioning is wrong. Yes always question the government. I myself don't have much faith in our government. I, however, have faith in ASCE, and other engineers including myself. In fact I am young enough to have discussed this with my engineering professors when I was in school. And some people on this site have even claimed secret energy weapons used to take down the towers. That and earthquake machines. You can't say that isn't crazy. Some truthers are CTs and believe in many CTs. Many truthers just don't know or don't understand the science. Others believe the engineering but believe the government could just be covering up the intelligence they may have had before the attack.

Chaster, just because there are some theories out there that sound "crazy" to you does not mean that you should automatically default and believe and defend the crappy conspiracy theory/lie that is the official account of 9-11.

Don't let that scientific gobbledegook put blinders on your eyes when it comes to the rest of the truth. Don't ignore the real evidence. Demand THE REAL EVIDENCE and don't ignore the questions that the government IGNORES.

As I have said many many times. You don't need to be a scientist to know that the official story is a lie. There are massive holes in that story. MASSIVE.

Take the blinders off and be more objective. Forget about all of the "crazy" other "theories" you don't believe and look only at all of the real evidence. You can believe that the twin towers just fell as a result of a plane hitting them if you want, but the rest of the story about hi jackers, and what planes actually hit the towers have no evidence to back them up.

And conspiracy theories have even less evidence to back them up. I have yet to see any real evidence.