im sorry to say that you practically do not explain anything in this threads introduction, and the evidence you use to prove your points is truely weak.

One of them is a piece of shattered metal presumably from an american airlines plane. It is the only scrap around the site that could belong to the 747 american airlines plane we're reffering to. No indestructible pieces of the wing, no large enigine parts, no bodies, no lugage, nothing that would resemble an airplane impact, except of course a twisted piece of titamnium, which doesnt even match the color of the plane was all that was found at the supossed wreckage site.

Another piece of evidence supporting the conspiracy theories, is the fact that the mannouver which we're supposed to believe the pilot executed in order to crash into that side of the pentagon is phisically imposible due to ground effect(look it up if you don't know what it is)

All your other explanations are equally feeble, and easily countered (I will not go into details as to not make my post excessivley long) but i must say that you fail to give any ground breaking evidence proving 9-11 to be an actual terrorist attacks or tell us anything we didn't already know. Your statments are based on your faith in good will and irrational assumptions instead of cold hard facts. Thats not the best way to create a theory is it?

Jesus Chirst, what's wrong with you. Here. Happy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:757_pentagon.gif *Plane bitch.*

Plane crash. Flight 77. Also, if the pilots were any good at flying airplanes, then the ground effect wouldn't have been a problem. Considering the amount of effort that went into this, then surely a pilot could overcome an increase in drag.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories are based on their faith in corruption and irrational assumptions and ignoring cold hard facts. That's not the best way to create a theory, is it? If the government couldn't cover this up. They can't even cover up a break-in to a hotel, or selling of weapons to Iran. Face it, you're the one using irrational assumptions.

if you can decive yourself into thinking that that is a 747 then that means I'm wasting my time posting this, but here it goes anyway.

The pentagon is the most monitered and secure building in the world, and this is the best shot they can get of the airplane hitting it? And I'm supposed to be satisfied with a pixelated image of an overly emphisized and dark tail fin above an incoherent and fuzzy object. Furthermore, the theory explaining this event is totally pereposterous and would want me to believe that an unexperienced pilot(look him up) manages to, after taking control of the vessel, pentrate washington and pentagon air space, and at cruise speed descend in a spiral, and land the plane into a totally empty and unimportant face of the pentagon building, without suffering at all from drag. The plane then creates a perfectly visible hole less than half the vessles diameter and size, without counting the large wing sections and the tail fin which atomize upon impact(something phisically impossible), and disintgrate completely after the explosion.

I'm not going to argue with you because there is simply no point in dicussing the fact that the united states has succesfully encovered many conspiracies such as the kennedy assasinations, the lusitania, the vietnamese war, eisenhowers crimes against americans civil liberties in the 50's, and many more that we don't even know about.

I would believe a theory based on facts and proof, but sadly these hipothesis lack any great empirical foundation,except for a low quality tape which really shows nothing at all except a silver blurr. Who knows...maybe it was the silve surfer who flew into the pentagon. Wait a second... It is!!! I can clearly make his head out!!!!!

What I'm trying to say, is that to much is being hidden, and not enough explanations are being given. The theories they give us are too far fetched and unfundamented for me to believe. Sorry.

Oh dear God. Kennedy assassination?  Conspiracy? You sir, are messed up. Watch. all three. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8mG24TGCAU ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xISJ6t4ekw&feature=related ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ubAQ-9cfY&feature=related

Also, Vietnam wasn't a conspiracy, that was America fulfilling it's vow to fight with a country trying to fend off communism. Eisenhower's crimes would be right in the open, but I have no clue what you are talking about. That isn't a conspiracy either. You're not very good at this. Also, the Lusitania, I mean, that's a new one. From what I know, the Germans sunk a ship. Are you saying the Government did that? To get a into a war it didn't want to fight? (U.S was an isolationist, look it up) Damn Patras, you make a lot of sense.

I noticed uncovered, though. Despite only none of those either being conspiracies or being on the news, didn't I make that point? Did you not read any of the posts I made before hand either? Where I got into an argument where I used uncovered conspiraces like those (not really conpiracies)  as an example? This would be a huge government cover up then. What happened to Flight 77? They were kidnapped, killed and the plane destroyed? I'm sure the relatives o those who died would love to hear this. Who planted the bombs? Where they silenced as well? How does the Government do this? They are pretty damn good. Wait, what? Watergate? You mean a much smaller conspiracy got uncovered? But that was less than 50 people involved!

Perhaps I should tell you this. The Pentagon is made of concrete and steel. A lot of concrete and steel. This means when something crashes into it, it doesn't leave that big a mark. And when a plane hits a normal building, it isn't a big plane cutout like cartoons.

lol, you are obviously very impressed by those vulgarity spewing clowns, who think that insulting people like a 13 year old kid would on XBLA is some what funny. I found their general stupidity insulting.

You and I obviously dont see eye to eye on many things, and making this argument endure, would be simply pointless. In my other post I used the term "encover", sorry, thats spanglish xd I meant to conceal or to cover up. That may have caused some confusion. Try not to get so heated in these stupid disccusions, it's not like we're going to change the world.

By the way, you said:"This means when something crashes into it, it doesn't leave that big a mark. And when a plane hits a normal building, it isn't a big plane cutout like cartoons." C'mon, we're not kids here, although I'm pretty sure your silver surfer would have made a pretty detailed outline ;)

Are we not arguing anymore? Done and done then.

THIS WHOLE THREAD REALLY ANNOYS AND OFFEND ME HAVING RELATIVES WHO DIED IN THE INCIDENT AND AS BEING IN THE MILITARY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENTS AND PART OF TAKING ACTION. TO MAKE MY POINT CLEAR WHEN I SEE THREADS LIKE THESE IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF.

Why are you angry at me? I am trying to prove that your relatives weren't killed by our government!