that snopes refutation of the non 757 is a little twisted and the the "video" of the pentagon hit has not been released.
http://www.flight77.info/ they did release snapshots from the 'video' that were supposed to "prove" that a boeing 757 hit the pentagan but they fall far short, in fact they pose more questions than answers. why not release the video?!
do you see a 757 in those pics? and there were no crowds of people on the highway saying they saw a large passenger jet.
the snopes refutation starts with an assumption that if you don't buy the bush commissions report you have to have a scenario that makes more sense, and if you don't the bush admins conspiracy theory stands. there's got to be a name for that kind of reasoning. We've already been given an explanation that hasn't met the evidence available. who cares if there isn't a better explanation yet, the point is that we havnt had a real investigation yet!
i think David Ray Griffin sums up where we're at with the pentagon on 9/11 relativly well..
"The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.
But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.
Q:What do they show?
DRG: They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, “I didn’t see any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing.” But about a month later, when asked he said, “Oh yes, I saw all that.” His memory had had time to be refreshed.
Q:If what you’re saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
That’s why I stress I’m not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.
http://independent.com/news/news906.htm
Hybrid Mode
