Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

benwj wrote:I don't give the US enough credit to pull it off.

It might that the conspiracists think its the jews/zionists. The vast majority of the DF forumers are anti-semites and give jews great exceptional power, to the extent that they rule and control everything in the world. Surely if you control the whole world you can pull a stunt like this.

For me, it would be completely impossible to cover this up. Imagine the amount of organizations and people that had to be involved in this (let alone the activities). Apparantly one poster now also claims the BBC is involved. Nine years after, no tangible evidence that this was a conspiracy. Just stories and speculations like building shouldnt fall this way or the Pentagon might be hit by a missile. Why no evidence? Because it wasnt!

Flying Dutchman wrote:

benwj wrote:I don't give the US enough credit to pull it off.

It might that the conspiracists think its the jews/zionists. The vast majority of the DF forumers are anti-semites and give jews great exceptional power, to the extent that they rule and control everything in the world. Surely if you control the whole world you can pull a stunt like this.

For me, it would be completely impossible to cover this up. Imagine the amount of organizations and people that had to be involved in this (let alone the activities). Apparantly one poster now also claims the BBC is involved. Nine years after, no tangible evidence that this was a conspiracy. Just stories and speculations like building shouldnt fall this way or the Pentagon might be hit by a missile. Why no evidence? Because it wasnt!

I'm sure you loved that Silverstein quote as much as I did. I'm surprised after watching that video of Silverstsein admitting his own guilt to the journalist where he told the fire chief to 'pull it' (demolish building 7), a judge hasn't issued a warrant for his arrest!



I think that was the biggest face palm in this thread for me. But every post by the truthers is a face palm.

Can someone please answer my question?

EH, there's an interview with a Rolls Royce representative in which he says that the wrecked engine in that picture is not a Rolls Royce engine, nor is it the Pratt & Whitney engine, which are the only engines the Boeing 757 would have. So although that picture DOES show the remains of an engine, it does not prove that it was in fact the engine of Flight 77, which is a Boeing 757. I'm not claiming that it was a cruise missile (don't go quoting me on an earlier post when I said it was, I'm putting all speculations aside here) but I'm saying that I don't think it was a Boeing 757. As for what happened to Flight 77 (FD, I'm looking at you) I don't know. If I knew, we wouldn't be having this debate. I would simply present my evidence and it would be accepted. I don't know what happened to it.

Icenic wrote:

kanelli wrote:It is utterly ridiculous to compare the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

As usual, you select one small point and comment on it, but fail to answer the question.

What, do you mean the irrelevant question of why the twin towers collapsed but the Beijing Cultural Centre didn't?

kanelli wrote:

Icenic wrote:

kanelli wrote:It is utterly ridiculous to compare the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

As usual, you select one small point and comment on it, but fail to answer the question.

What, do you mean the irrelevant question of why the twin towers collapsed but the Beijing Cultural Centre didn't?

No, but I meant that you commented on that, because it might be irrelevant, but ignored the rest.

-- Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:51 am --

Also, why is it irrelevant?

Icenic, examples like that are exactly why I can't take the conspiracy theorists seriously. They pick out what they think is odd, come up with elaborate explanations, twist other information involved to support their theories, and compare apples to oranges. It isn't hard for them to drum up support for their theories. Some people really want to believe it was the US government (maybe even collaborating with the Israelis!) because they detest the government that much.

p.s. The fact that you think it isn't irrelevant to compare the destruction of the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers tells a lot...

p.s. The fact that you think it isn't irrelevant to compare the destruction of the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers tells a lot...

I asked you why it's irrelevant. I didn't say I thought it wasn't.

-- Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:24 am --

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.

It did not fall.

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

It did not fall.

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

It did not fall.

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

It did not fall.

A more recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the fires described above, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel.

It did not fall.

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

None of these buildings fell, yet the WTC collapsed in a demolition-like manner. So how do you explain this?

event horizon wrote:I think that was the biggest face palm in this thread for me. But every post by the truthers is a face palm.

The last time I heard somebody speaking about a conspiracy inside another conspiracy was when a person was under the influence of a mix of drugs.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

event horizon wrote:I think that was the biggest face palm in this thread for me. But every post by the truthers is a face palm.

The last time I heard somebody speaking about a conspiracy inside another conspiracy was when a person was under the influence of a mix of drugs.

What a wonderful contribution to the debate FD.

Icenic, you need to understand that people dont bother to read conspiracy and those so called "scholar"s writings. IMO they have been so kind to contibute till now.

Well, it looks like the debate is nearing it's end - are we now left only with sarcastic comments and references to face palms?

Darn - I was looking forward to the explanations.

Cheers,
Shafique

Icenic wrote:

p.s. The fact that you think it isn't irrelevant to compare the destruction of the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers tells a lot...

I asked you why it's irrelevant. I didn't say I thought it wasn't.

-- Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:24 am --

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.

It did not fall.

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

It did not fall.

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

It did not fall.

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

It did not fall.

A more recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the fires described above, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel.

It did not fall.

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

None of these buildings fell, yet the WTC collapsed in a demolition-like manner. So how do you explain this?

So you are okay with comparing apples to oranges. You said you never said it was irrelevant, then followed that up with more apple and orange comparison that shows that you do find it relevant to compare apples and oranges.

You are so right in thinking that tall buildings that have been on fire are comparable.

Face palm indeed.

I repeat

desertdudeshj wrote:

kanelli wrote:"A few extremist Mulsims hijacked 4 planes, managed to run two of them in to the world trade center because of which both of them collapsed and that world trade center tower 7 was damaged by debris and later fell itself. And that another plane also was flown into the pentagon and one crash landed in a field."

You got it!

I asked for specific questions. That wasn't a question, it was a statment with even a shred of proof for backing it up.

Or shall I believe you are just pretending or simply lying ?

kanelli wrote:And zonker, people can change their minds after discussion. It has happened to me many times. From having good discussions I have personally reflected on some of my own views and have learned to check alternative sources to try to get a larger perspective on an issue.

Thats what I meant to do, not neccasarily to change your mind but encourge discussion and maybe put my point across aswell, that anyone who believes in the contrary is not a tin foiler and has valid unanswered questions.

But what you have demostrated and said in this thread is totally against what you said above in another. So what is it really then ?

So you are okay with comparing apples to oranges. You said you never said it was irrelevant, then followed that up with more apple and orange comparison that shows that you do find it relevant to compare apples and oranges.

So then what makes the WTC so different that it would collapse in a demolition-like manner after a few hours of burning? This question has been asked so many times in this thread and remains unanswered.

Icenic wrote:So then what makes the WTC so different that it would collapse in a demolition-like manner after a few hours of burning?

It has been answered and I thought I was quite obvious. A 767 flew into it amongst others.

I have previously had a taste of truther propaganda and my personal judgment says it is bullcr.ap. I have no interest in wading deep into it to answer Icenic's specific questions. I'm fully within my rights to state that I am anti-conspiracy theory in the case of 9/11 and give some basic reasons why it implausible that the US government could have perpetrated this massive act of terror. No one here is obligated to look as deeply into the conspiracies as Icenic has and answer his specific questions. In fact, he seems disappointed that no one here is really going into great detail to try to convince him that his conspiracy beliefs are incorrect. If the audience aren't game, they aren't game.

What I stated previously about having discussions and changing my mind is not invalid just because I don't change my mind to believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

-- Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:58 pm --

Icenic wrote:

So you are okay with comparing apples to oranges. You said you never said it was irrelevant, then followed that up with more apple and orange comparison that shows that you do find it relevant to compare apples and oranges.

So then what makes the WTC so different that it would collapse in a demolition-like manner after a few hours of burning? This question has been asked so many times in this thread and remains unanswered.

Icenic, what differing variables have you considered in your critical thinking on this matter? How important are those variables?

It was designed to with stand impacts from commercial jet liners, if one went down it could be given to unique and unforseen circumstances but then the second went down and then the third went down which had nothing hit it. What is the probabilty of the improbable happening three times within less than 12 hours. Has never happened before and after.

If the plane hit it and weakened the support structure it would have either gone down instantly, tipped over to the side and "spilled over" or crushed even 50 floors before it come to halt,. Not freefall to the ground in a pile of dust and molten steel three times over.

And again as I mentioned earlier the beams in the WTC needed to fail with in miliseconds of each other for it to come straight down. Steel being weakened by heal does not go from a soild to liquid or maleable state instantly. Its a slow process. We would have seen the towers slowly tipping over as the steel weakend or compressing gradually, not in a flash as it supposed to have.

Even if I make the leap of the three WTC and believe the official story. Still the pentagon and crash in field leave so many unanswered questions which are pretty hard to ignore and remained unanswered.

Pretty hard to swallow.

kanelli wrote:I have previously had a taste of truther propaganda and my personal judgment says it is bullcr.ap. I have no interest in wading deep into it to answer Icenic's specific questions. I'm fully within my rights to state that I am anti-conspiracy theory in the case of 9/11 and give some basic reasons why it implausible that the US government could have perpetrated this massive act of terror. No one here is obligated to look as deeply into the conspiracies as Icenic has and answer his specific questions. In fact, he seems disappointed that no one here is really going into great detail to try to convince him that his conspiracy beliefs are incorrect. If the audience aren't game, they aren't game.

What I stated previously about having discussions and changing my mind is not invalid just because I don't change my mind to believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

So what your saying is you want to have your cake and eat it too ? Read again no one is asking you to change your mind, you haven't even attempted to reasonably take part in this debate, the best you could muster up was I saw a documentry once.

The devil is in the details and there are specific questions and pieces of eveidence that throw doubt on the official version. And once you have even a single piece of eveidence which cannot be explained logically. Then it goes from being a theory to a probability and the more pieces you have the more probable it becomes. So this is no longer is a conspiracy theory, it is a very probable conspiracy. Unless the evidence for it can be claried.

Audience isn't game I can live that, I've had this 9/11 dicussion many times over on many places and its always the same. At first the firm believers will come in strong, saying it is not possible but when you put forward certain facts there are hardly ever any answers or even believable probabilties put forward, and eventualy to going silent.

The only thing people can claim is, and its happened or is happening in this thread aswell is, the lack of an alternative scenario. What really then ? Well thats what we are asking and trying to find out too !

False flag operations are not beyond the realm of possibilty as there is clear cut evidence that these have been on the table before and one cannot rule them out. Also the US govt is capable of great deception as in the case of the Iraq war.

Like I said like many times before " I want to believe " and will certainly put everyone including myself at ease that the current crisis the world is in now is somehow justified. Sometimes its all seems way too outhere to believe, but the root of all this is the 9/11 attacks, but if even can't prove that 9/11 happened the way it did, the whole war on terror and its fatal aftermath on every side falls like a house of cards.

And thats also one of the reason why many don't want to look into it, because it shakes the whole foundation of what has happened in the last 9 years.

I want to have my cake and eat it too? Seriously DDS, that is a pretty lame attempt at winding me up.

If you have decided that I don't put up a reasonable discussion here, what is stopping you from chewing the fat with Icenic over this issue and ignoring my posts?

The fact that you two have very little critical thought about the comparison of the other high rise buildings that have caught fire around the world and the Trade Center twin towers doesn't give me hope that the discussion will be that persuasive.

Icenic, what differing variables have you considered in your critical thinking on this matter? How important are those variables?

DDS listed the variables better than I could have, so I have nothing to add.

I'm fully within my rights to state that I am anti-conspiracy theory in the case of 9/11 and give some basic reasons why it implausible that the US government could have perpetrated this massive act of terror.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and no on has attacked or attempted to change that. What you're saying is that it's more plausible that a bunch of cavemen terrorists were able to pull this whole thing, and train pilots to do what trained pilots have personally told me is near-impossible, than the U.S. government, the most powerful government in the last 10-20 years, having been behind it all.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem logical to me.

No one here is obligated to look as deeply into the conspiracies as Icenic has and answer his specific questions. In fact, he seems disappointed that no one here is really going into great detail to try to convince him that his conspiracy beliefs are incorrect.

No one is obligated, but you joined this thread when it was deep into the details, and as DDS mentioned, had nothing much to say more than "I watched a documentary once".

Also, I'm not disappointed that no one is going into great detail, rather I'm disappointed that you all dismissed the details which DDS, Joe and I presented without matching the level of detail. I'm also disappointed that you resorted to mockery and sarcasm, which shows disrespect towards my opinion, and thus hypocrisy on your behalf.

I don't understand why you directed your comments towards me personally, when there are others on this thread that share my opinion, and whose questions have also been unanswered, although they asked again and again that they are. It seems you are making this personal, and I will not signify that attempt with any further comments.

Kanelli

For someone that is always advocating sensible discussion on these forums and an open mind you have shown that your approach is the exact opposite. You have brought in the holocaust, ahmadinejad and just repeated that you are not interested in conspiracy, etc. Nobody is denying the holocaust here, nobody is denying 911 happened and that thousands died, nobody is frankly even talking about that. What we are discussing here is the anomolies that make us believe that 911 is not what was fed to us by the media. If you don't wish to participate than don't but if you do than have some courtesy and stay on topic rather and discuss the points being made. Your actions remind me of a 4 year old that sticks their fingers in their ears and refuses to listen. I think DDS hit the nail on the head when he said that nobody wants to believe it could be anything else than what has been protrayed as the prospect is extremely worrying however its got to be better to know the facts and therefore the truth. The word ignorant comes from the word "ignore".

kanelli wrote:I want to have my cake and eat it too? Seriously DDS, that is a pretty lame attempt at winding me up.

If you have decided that I don't put up a reasonable discussion here, what is stopping you from chewing the fat with Icenic over this issue and ignoring my posts?

The fact that you two have very little critical thought about the comparison of the other high rise buildings that have caught fire around the world and the Trade Center twin towers doesn't give me hope that the discussion will be that persuasive.

I asked your earlier to list your questions but you refused ? But I will answer the one you ( kind of ) posed here

Ok fine maybe ours/mine thinking is flawed trying to compare the others structures on fire and the WTC, but could you care to explain why ?

FD put forth that the WTC's were hit by commercial jet liners, but they were designed to withstand to impacts and they did. They did not fall from the actual impact but what is claimed is that the resulting fires are what weakend the structures and that is said to have caused the actualy collapse. Not the impacts

Now there are two problems with this theory, this is a theory as there is no actualy evidence to this happening nor were there are investigation carried out of the crime scence, instead it was loaded as quickly as possible and shipped off to China. And the second problem as I've also mentioned is steel just does not turn into liquid or fails instantly fron heat, its a gradual process. This is fact as it can be replicated many times over and is well know piece of knowledge.

And also all this while you ignore the WTC 7 falling on its own foot print. It was not hit by any plane and yet it went down ?

Trust me it is due to critical thinking that today I don't believe the official story. Uptil 2006/7 I was a true "believer" as you might say.

So this is my answer to why the comparision of WTC and other structures for example the Bejing cultral center tower being burnt to a crisp is a valid one. I would love to hear from you that why it isn't.

JoeTGF wrote:The word ignorant comes from the word "ignore".

Brillant, and so true....

I'm not claiming that it was a cruise missile

The truther arguments in this thread aren't consistent.

DD has already said that he believed it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon even though the evidence clearly shows a plane struck it.

If I had bothered to spend time on the cruise missile theory, it would have been all for naught because the conspiracy would have changed to a remote controlled plane or something.

Anyways, I'm not an aviation expert, can a plane like a 757 not show up on civilian radar? Is that possible and is it possible for flight 77 to somehow cloak its radar signature and fly 1000's of miles undetected to an air base in the American Southwest somewhere?

Before addressing whether those parts came from flight 77 - and I think it did or the truthers would highlight this as the most compelling evidence that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon - you need to address the whole issue of radar signatures and how it's possible for one jumbo jet to disappear and for another one to instantly appear in its place.

JoeTGF wrote:Kanelli

For someone that is always advocating sensible discussion on these forums and an open mind you have shown that your approach is the exact opposite. You have brought in the holocaust, ahmadinejad and just repeated that you are not interested in conspiracy, etc. Nobody is denying the holocaust here, nobody is denying 911 happened and that thousands died, nobody is frankly even talking about that.

nopes, that was me! not her! dont need to blame it on her.
Again, I think this Icenic guy brings up stuff like this: oh look everyone! I found some resources on the "internet"!!! 9/11 was not a terrorist attack!

Just like what Ahmadinejad does in real world. (2010 New York)

So the next question will be:who believes in Holocaust?
(As Ahmadinejad asked, well maybe our president wanna be will have other questions)

event horizon wrote:Anyways, I'm not an aviation expert, can a plane like a 757 not show up on civilian radar? Is that possible and is it possible for flight 77 to somehow cloak its radar signature and fly 1000's of miles undetected to an air base in the American Southwest somewhere?

Before addressing whether those parts came from flight 77 - and I think it did or the truthers would highlight this as the most compelling evidence that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon - you need to address the whole issue of radar signatures and how it's possible for one jumbo jet to disappear and for another one to instantly appear in its place.

Like I said every explanation given asks more questions than it answer. NORAD was taking part in war games that day and most of Americas air defense assests were in the air, NORAD and civil avation were tracking these planes and had confirmation and been alerted these were hijacked and "real world" situations and not part of the war games.

How come they were not intercepted. Specially when they had confirmation the intent was deadly after the WTC attacks. They just let it slam into the Pentagon ? and the other was either headed for capital hill or the white house. Specialy when assest were in the air and in combat readiness mode. Would have taken one radio call and one sidewinder to take them out.

Or even provide a military "escort" and "thump them" ( Military term when a jet uses its jet wash to literally slap the target in an effort to comply and show intent is serious, a sort of a arial shot across the bow if you will ) If you are going to argue next no one was willing to shoot down civilians.

No effort at all was made to intercept these rogue planes. Pretty hard to swallow the biggest airforce in the world could not do anything about two planes over its own skies. And also remember at that time majority of its assets were in the US as there were not tied down in any war efforts abroad at that moment.

Sorry didn't address this in my first post

event horizon wrote:DD has already said that he believed it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon even though the evidence clearly shows a plane struck it.

What evidence ?

melika969 wrote:
nopes, that was me! not her! dont need to blame it on her.
Again, I think this Icenic guy brings up stuff like this: oh look everyone! I found some resources on the "internet"!!! 9/11 was not a terrorist attack!

Just like what Ahmadinejad does in real world. (2010 New York)

So the next question will be:who believes in Holocaust?
(As Ahmadinejad asked, well maybe our president wanna be will have other questions)

Seriously? You think I just found a few sources online and pointed them out? What are you basing that on? And please stop bringing up the holocaust. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

I've spoken to pilots personally, and watched a few documentaries, read countless articles, and researched the topic in depth, and thus arrived at my opinion. I think your comment shows major ignorance on your behalf. You were never part of this thread, and suddenly pop up and mock me. Please keep your immature comments to yourself. Thank you.

Icenic wrote:

melika969 wrote:
nopes, that was me! not her! dont need to blame it on her.
Again, I think this Icenic guy brings up stuff like this: oh look everyone! I found some resources on the "internet"!!! 9/11 was not a terrorist attack!

Just like what Ahmadinejad does in real world. (2010 New York)

So the next question will be:who believes in Holocaust?
(As Ahmadinejad asked, well maybe our president wanna be will have other questions)

Seriously? You think I just found a few sources online and pointed them out? What are you basing that on? And please stop bringing up the holocaust. I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

I've spoken to pilots personally, and watched a few documentaries, read countless articles, and researched the topic in depth, and thus arrived at my opinion. I think your comment shows major ignorance on your behalf. You were never part of this thread, and suddenly pop up and mock me. Please keep your immature comments to yourself. Thank you.

Calm down kid. First you need to learn, this is an open forum and people can comment.So if you start a ridiculous thread, then you have to expect ridiculous answers.

As I tried to explain ,the Holocaust was referring to Ahmadinejad. As he denied 9/11 and Holocaust.
It was a guess, you might want to deny holocaust like 9/11. maybe you have spoken with some people and realized that it was not true and you want to ask that question later, maybe not!

Thank you!

event horizon wrote:

I'm not claiming that it was a cruise missile

The truther arguments in this thread aren't consistent.

DD has already said that he believed it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon even though the evidence clearly shows a plane struck it.

If I had bothered to spend time on the cruise missile theory, it would have been all for naught because the conspiracy would have changed to a remote controlled plane or something.

Anyways, I'm not an aviation expert, can a plane like a 757 not show up on civilian radar? Is that possible and is it possible for flight 77 to somehow cloak its radar signature and fly 1000's of miles undetected to an air base in the American Southwest somewhere?

Before addressing whether those parts came from flight 77 - and I think it did or the truthers would highlight this as the most compelling evidence that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon - you need to address the whole issue of radar signatures and how it's possible for one jumbo jet to disappear and for another one to instantly appear in its place.

That was DDS' opinion, which he supported with the fact the engine found in the wreckage was not consistent with the Rolls Royce or the Pratt & Witney engines, but rather the Tomahawk ones. What part of that is wrong? I personally couldn't see where he is mistaken, but I did not automatically accept it, so I did my own research, and found that the engine found in the wreckage was indeed inconsistent with those of the Boeing. As for the Tomahawk, I still am not sure it is consistent with that one. So you tell me where he went wrong, because I couldn't figure it out.