I've been reading some info recently on the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11. I think Ron may have posted some info earlier. Here's a link to a lot of info:http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

I first read about doubts concerning the official version in the chapter on Flight 77 in Griffin's, The New Pearl Harbor.

One question that sticks out in my mind is why wasn't the plane shot down? Surely the Pentagon is protected with a highly sophisticated missile defense system. What wasn't the approaching plane fired at?
The other is, why is the hole in the Pentagon wall shown in the pictures before the building collapsed, so small. If it was a 757, I'd expect a much bigger hole.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Not only is it a rumor, it's BS. The pentagon was NOT in the business of shooting down civilian aircraft at the time.

My brother was outside the Pentagon at the time of the attack and saw it with his own two eyes, unless you have a doctor in France that will discredit his eyesight (and many others) I'll take his word for it.

I bet you looked at that old BS email and said hmmmm very interesting. Did that come from a CBS account BTW.

Med Mech: I have no idea what e-mail you refer to. My thoughts were spurred from Griffin's book.

There's nothing in the photographs that looks like the impact of a 757 to me. I don't see any place where the wings and engines would have hit the building on the exterior. Griffin tackles the idea that the wings folded back as the nose hit. It doesn't make any sense, particularly with the weight of the engines on the wings. The wings would have continued forward as the nose slowed when it hit the building. When the planes hit the Towers, there was clear evidence of the wings penetrating the structure.
I suppose the picture of the large circular hole in the interior could be a result of an engine piercing the structure.

Griffin's book does refer to a standard procedure for aircraft to be scrambled if a scheduled flight deviated from its standard path.
I find it hard to believe that the Pentagon was not defended with a a missile system of some sort. It had also been known for a fairly long time that two planes had been flown into the Twin Towers as this plane approached the Pentagon.

I read the Snopes piece. It doesn't answer all the questions. At one point it states that there is a hole where the aircraft pierced the building but it is behind the water and smoke in the photograph. Perhaps, but they don't give any evidence to support that claim.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

The Pentagon was and is defended by a missle defense system the order was not yet givin to shoot down civilian airliners. again many people saw with the eyes that god gave them a 757.

Like you said before never underestimate the power of the internet.

Seems odd to me. Two hijacked planes already hit Twin Towers. Hijacked plane approaching a building defended with missiles. Plane is tracked for quite a few minutes. No action taken to defend the Pentagon.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

What seems odd is that you refuse to acknowledge that real people that were actually there saw it in real life.

Maybe The Men in Black used the memory eraser and flashed programed some 11,000 people...yea that's it.