PENTAGON RESPONSES

PENTAGON RESPONSES

----------------

From: "C
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentagon
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:16:16 -0400

Dear Odd Todd,

I used to read your site every day. It's very funny. You're very funny.
I used to live in New York so it helped me feel connected with the
city and with the good old days.

Then a couple of years ago you posted the link to the slide show
denying that a plane hit the Pentagon. I stopped reading
you regularly, couldn't bear that you posted what basically struck me
as the lowest kind of shit, up there with Holocaust denial. Now I
only check in every six months or less when I'm desperate to park my
brain. I thought of writing at the time but couldn't.

Funny coincidence. Today was one of those days that I needed a break
and I saw your apology about your Pentagon paranoia post, so I
checked it out.

Same old compilation of lies.

Since my PTSD seems to have cleared up, here's my story:

I work about 1/2 mile from the Pentagon in a development called
Pentagon City. The Pentagon is visible from many offices in my
building. My office did not face the Pentagon, but did face the
flight path for the airplane that hit the Pentagon. On 9/11, I saw a
plane going by my office clearly on a trajectory to hit the Pentagon.
It was a large jet with the American Airlines logo visible.

Youve seen planes land, so you know they go down sort of slowly, with
their landing gear engaged. This one was pointed straight at the
Pentagon, so at a downward angle, and it was going incredible fast.
No landing gear in sight. After I saw the plane, I ran down the hall
and saw the giant fireball out the window. I didn't see the Pentagon
get hit, but plenty of people here did. And I saw the before (plane
going at 500 miles an hour) and after (giant tower of fire).

There are eyewitnesses, but conspiracy theorists don't believe them.
One of the websites you point to casts doubt on eyewitness accounts
by pointing out that many of them disagree. There is no arguing with
someone who is disinclined to believe what they don't want to believe.
And since I work for a defense contractor, a conspiracy theorist
would put me down as an unreliable witness too.

Tourists do visit the Pentagon but the tour basically involves
walking through an office building so not that exciting. Because of
geography, it is not as easy to take pictures of it as the World
Trade Center which loomed over lower Manhattan. It's not that
exciting of a building, so not too surprising that people weren't
taking pictures of it.

If you saw how fast that plane was going and the huge fire you'd
understand how the airplane was incinerated. Just as amazing, as
shocking, and as repellent as the airplanes being destroyed in the
World Trade Center.

> >C

------------------------------------------------------

From: S
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentagon conspiracy theories
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:28:34 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Todd,

You know I dig your site the most, dude, but the Pentagon
conspiracy theory thing you just brought up? Just really pisses me off
and I'll tell you why.

1.) My mother's best friend's husband, xxxxxx, (Ret.) whom I've known my entire life,
was a liaison between the Army and civilian contractors who worked at the Pentagon for several years (approx.
1998-2002). He was in the building on Sept. 11th when the plane
crashed into the building. He had to walk over the bodies of
co-workers to get out of the building. He was there and saw the
wreckage of the plane and the destruction it caused. I could be
making this up, of course. Look him up- he currently is a consultant
for Boeing and works in Washington D.C. He lives in Potomac Falls, Virginia.

2.) There are many, many photographs, from a variety of independent
sources, of the plane wreckage inside the ruins of the Pentagon. I'd
check your sources on that, because I've also seen photos that have
been cleverly photoshopped to remove the wreckage from the shot. It's
not that hard and it sure is easy to produce doctored photos these
days, to support all kinds of agendas.

3.) Why would the government fake a plane crash into the Pentagon,
again? Planes had already crashed into the WTC towers and were about to
crash into a field in Pennsylvania. What would be the point of faking
another crash? And if you're going to bring the conspiracy theories,
you might as well go all the way and surmise that ALL of the events of
9/11 were faked, shadowy government conspiracy, total secrecy, etc., etc.

4.) It's the Pentagon, the most secure office building on the planet.
It's unlikely that they'd just throw us all a handful of photos of the
crash from their various surveillance cameras and satellites, thereby
letting us know where all of those cameras and satellites are, not to
mention their capabilities.

I've been reading your site for years. Don't go nutbar on me now,

please.

> S

-------------------------

From: "D
To: [email protected]
Subject: debunking the pentagon stuff
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 11:14:55 -0400

Hey Todd. I thought you might find this interesting. It's an article in
popular mechanics that debunks the story that a plane didn't hit the
pentagon.

Just thought you'd enjoy reading the other side of the argument. I
totally agree that it's fascinating!

-d

--------------------------

From: "B
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentagon conspiracy
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 17:52:58 -0500

I'm sure you've received tons of these, but most of the things that the
conspiracy theorists say can be easily disproven.

A) The wings caused no damage because they snapped off and entered
more toward the center of the impact area. The black marks from the
explosions are still visible on the outside of the walls.

B) Debris is visible in many pictures, but the conspiracy theorists
don't show them. There were hundreds of pictures taken that day, some
are obviously going to not show debris, while others will. Most of the
debris also landed INSIDE the building, and once the steel support
beams melted and collapsed, the walls covered up much of the smaller
pieces. There are no large pieces of debris because it all disintegrated.

C) There were few casualties mostly due to the fact that the section
of the Pentagon that was hit was almost finished with renovations that
were designed to increase survivability. The steel columns mentioned
above were part of the reason that so many survived, because they held
up long enough for the building to evacuate. In addition, the walls
were lined with a thick layer of kevlar, stopped large amounts of debris.

D) Even a novice pilot could ram the Pentagon. The Heads-Up-Display
contains a small symbol that shows exactly the direction the aircraft
is headed, not just where the nose is pointed. This is how pilots can
touch down on a runway in a tiny 30 x 100 foot box (approximately).
Even so, the pilots almost missed, for the hit just a few feet before the actual walls.

There are many other factors, I just can't remember more. Remember,
look at more than one source. Also remember that these people are just
sensationalists looking to get famous or get money (or both).

TALK ABOUT IT HERE IF YOU WANNA