pentagon plane crash video

[freethinker]

i saw a video of David Icke discussing that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and that a Hawk or something did

i also heard that there was never any footage of the plane hitting the building that was ever released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

go to 1 min 28 secs

[whitenight639]

it irritates me people mention this it shouldnt matter what hit the pentagon, it would have been better if it was a nuke! the fact is more innocent people died in the wtc buildings.

[tinmenace]

I don't see a plane.

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg


Does that look like a plane to you? Really?

This is the nose of a 757. I don't see any similarity.

http://images1.jetphotos.net/images/img2/2/20060722bab757g-bpei01.jpg.21524.jpg.thumb

[warrior]

i also heard that there was never any footage of the plane hitting the building that was ever released


http://911blimp.net/pentagonStrike.htm

[pk_11]

In my opinion, the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

1) there is no logic to the idea of not using a plane when planes were used on wtcs...

2) the evidence is too debatable... the 90 foot hole/18 foot hole, debrees/no debrees, etc...

3) you CAN see the plane in one of the pentagon videos, not the one shown here though.


(oh yeah, and I'm new to this forum. don't kill me. >.>)

[indigo]

A plane couldn't have flown that low though with out making any markings on the grass, also what i noticed when watching looses change (i think) was that the street lamps were facing outwards like they had been blasted out, whereas if it was a plane it would have hit them first knocking them inwards.:(

[oneofmany]

In my opinion, the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

1) there is no logic to the idea of not using a plane when planes were used on wtcs...

2) the evidence is too debatable... the 90 foot hole/18 foot hole, debrees/no debrees, etc...

3) you CAN see the plane in one of the pentagon videos, not the one shown here though.


(oh yeah, and I'm new to this forum. don't kill me. >.>)

If you think a pilot with zero experience in the type of plane could make that manuvure, GREAT!! but try it for yourself and get back to me. Go get a flight simulator, load up the correct airbus and try to make the same approach as this plane supposedly did. Then and only then will you realise that the move is bloody near impossible, even for an experienced pilot.

It was a rocket, not a plane

[whitenight639]

if it wasnt a plane 1- why did they take all the cctv videos and 2- whouldnt bending lightposts and placing jet engines get witnesses?

i dunno dnt really care either

[tinmenace]

In my opinion, the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

1) there is no logic to the idea of not using a plane when planes were used on wtcs...

2) the evidence is too debatable... the 90 foot hole/18 foot hole, debrees/no debrees, etc...

3) you CAN see the plane in one of the pentagon videos, not the one shown here though.


(oh yeah, and I'm new to this forum. don't kill me. >.>)

Alright, if it was a plane, what is that thingy circled in red in the photo above?

[pk_11]

Alright, if it was a plane, what is that thingy circled in red in the photo above?

It's too low quality, and motion blurred, to make it out. Although another video released shows the entire plane for a single frame.


As to the plane getting that low without marking the grass... It is possible, from the videos as well as the damage I'm guessing it just came down at a slight angle.


And obviously Hani didn't have the experience for such a manuever. Either he was the luckiest person alive, or that plane was remote-controlled. (or he was an mlk victim with a second personality programmed for flying).

But a Boeing is technically able to pull off what happened... it's just nearly impossible for a pilot like Hani to do alone.


The reason they are not releasing many videos, then, would probably be to make people over-analyze the pentagon crash and focus on that... then when they release a video of the plane, they can act like they've discredited the entire 9/11 truth movement.



The following is an article by a 9/11 truth site that explains why a plane probably did hit the pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

Also, most eyewitnesses saw the plane, including someone I know.

It's much more likely that the plane was remote controlled. Why would you use a missle? It just causes the need for more of a cover-up, and doesn't really accomplish anything.

[tinmenace]

It's too low quality, and motion blurred, to make it out. Although another video released shows the entire plane for a single frame.

No way, that's a lame excuse. It's not THAT pixelated that you cannot see the basic shape and color of the object, and even some detail on the nose of it. Anybody can see AT LEAST that much. So, don't be intellectually dishonest about it.

Tell me, what you think this thing is, please?

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg

[thirdwave]

if it wasnt a plane 1- why did they take all the cctv videos and 2- whouldnt bending lightposts and placing jet engines get witnesses?

i dunno dnt really care either

what ever that is in the pic, its not what the offical story said hit....

and you ask about witnesses?...so what about witnesses?, the news wont give them the time of day and if there was a website of a guy who claimed to have seen them put the posts there people would just call it a hoax site, expeshaly when the elite just throw up another website claiming to expose how he is a fraud... they dont even need any real evidence just enough to cast doubt and the witness is no longer relevent to most...

there are witnesses who claim to have seen explosions go of in the towers, MANY.... some claim to see the windows boarded up on the planes and they were no way comecial jets, this was live on CNN...

they claim that a missle hit the pentagon... or a small plane, again looking nothing like a comercial jet.

but all these people mean nothing... because others say they saw it...
the question is, who are these others? the thing that anoys me, is its so obviouse that some people who even know they saw somthing very diforent and just so busy shitting there pants at a very deep level, they will even lie to them selfs and say they was what Mr Bush wanted them to see... and you can spot these peoples arse twitch a mile away.

In the UK when that Brazilian guy was shot dead, a "witness" told the BBC what "he saw" and after the family totaly pushed the matter further (and well done to them for that) it was reviled that what happned was totaly diforent to what this "Witness" and police had said happend..TOTALY diforent, infact it reviled a pack of lies!.
the only thing the BBC done was the following week showed this 1 min clip on how its so hard for by standers to actualy see what goes on in these situations.. asking people what a guy was carrying who just walked past them a minute ago.... Pathetic...allthough whats more pathetic is thats good enough for some people...

the word witness is a very meaningless word nowerdays... if you pay atantion to the mainstreem media that is.

[thirdwave]

No way, that's a lame excuse. It's not THAT pixelated that you cannot see the basic shape and color of the object, and even some detail on the nose of it. Anybody can see AT LEAST that much. So, don't be intellectually dishonest about it.

Tell me, what you think this thing is, please?

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg

of course a great way for them to reveal this big mystery is for them to release the other video tapes!!, including the one that they confiscated from the garage near by!

[pk_11]

No way, that's a lame excuse. It's not THAT pixelated that you cannot see the basic shape and color of the object, and even some detail on the nose of it. Anybody can see AT LEAST that much. So, don't be intellectually dishonest about it.

Tell me, what you think this thing is, please?

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg

Why do you insist on waving around only that particular picture?

This is another shot from another surveillence camera, clearly showing the plane.

I have super-imposed a picture of flight 77 over the video to compare shapes. It lines up well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/[HOD]PK/pentagonplanecopy2.jpg

[tinmenace]

Why do you insist on waving around only that particular picture?



Because I think it deserves an explanation, don't you?

Just because you're unable or unwilling to explain it away doesn't mean that I have to stop insisting on an explanation for it. It's there, I see it, you see it...now what is it?

No theory you put forward can be acceptable without the inclusion of an explanation on this object.

[indigo]

And besides PK_11, you could also compare that pic to a tomahawk missle

[tinmenace]

Why do you insist on waving around only that particular picture?

This is another shot from another surveillence camera, clearly showing the plane.

I have super-imposed a picture of flight 77 over the video to compare shapes. It lines up well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/[HOD]PK/pentagonplanecopy2.jpg

What about the size? Is your superimposed example to scale?

[klinker]

Based upon the evidence I have seen there is no way an airliner or any jet of that size hit the Pentagon. I believe it was a missile.

[tinmenace]

Right! There is no way an untrained pilot can fly a 757 at ground level (without tipping the wings even slightly) at 500 MPH straight into the ground floor of a building (WITHOUT touching ground even once). He'd have to be coming in at ground level way before the vicinity of the Pentagon to achieve a completely even approach without tipping the wings, at 500 MPH, otherwise he would have crashed into the ground.

There is no way this was a plane.

[klinker]

Other than the controllers coming forward and saying this is how we did it I would really like to see the video tape from the gas station across the road opposite the impact point. This video tape was apparently confiscated by the Feds.

[tinmenace]

Other than the controllers coming forward and saying this is how we did it I would really like to see the video tape from the gas station across the road opposite the impact point. This video tape was apparently confiscated by the Feds.

Exactly! And! There were cameras all along the top of the Pentagon, where is the footage from them? The can never convince me that the PENTAGON, of all places, doesn't have a camera on every corner and in every cranny. They have tons of footage but they're hiding the truth that's why there is no other footage available.

They confiscated the videos MINUTES after it happened. I'd say they were waiting and ready. Wouldn't you?

[pk_11]

Exactly! And! There were cameras all along the top of the Pentagon, where is the footage from them? The can never convince me that the PENTAGON, of all places, doesn't have a camera on every corner and in every cranny. They have tons of footage but they're hiding the truth that's why there is no other footage available.

They confiscated the videos MINUTES after it happened. I'd say they were waiting and ready. Wouldn't you?


I'm sure they were ready. I believe that elements of the us government were complicit in 9/11.

However, I'm not convinced that anything other than a plane hit the pentagon.

The pilot didn't have the experience to do that menuever, sure, but that doesn't automatically mean that there was no plane. There are many other explainations: the plane was remote-controlled, for example. Or maybe he just got lucky!

[oneofmany]

And besides PK_11, you could also compare that pic to a tomahawk missle
exactly, what gets me about the plane theory is the airspeed the plane must of been traveling to do the damage that was done, which would of made the plane want to traverse upwards, regardless of wether it was flown by remote control (even harder than piloting yourself IMO) or piloting yourself. the only thing that can hit it's target everytime is a missile. The manuvre was almost impossible for anyone but the most experienced pilot, and these guys definitly were not that

[tinmenace]

I'm sure they were ready. I believe that elements of the us government were complicit in 9/11.

However, I'm not convinced that anything other than a plane hit the pentagon.

The pilot didn't have the experience to do that menuever, sure, but that doesn't automatically mean that there was no plane. There are many other explainations: the plane was remote-controlled, for example. Or maybe he just got lucky!

So, it is within the realms of possibility that it was remote controlled, but not that it wasn't a plane? How come? How can a missile, for example, be outside the realms of possibility despite the object in the video which you refuse to admit is not a plane?

Besides, you still haven't answered my questions PK, so, I'll post them again:



What about the size? Is your superimposed example to scale?

Originally Posted by pk_11 View Post
Why do you insist on waving around only that particular picture?

Because I think it deserves an explanation, don't you?

Just because you're unable or unwilling to explain it away doesn't mean that I have to stop insisting on an explanation for it. It's there, I see it, you see it...now what is it?

No theory you put forward can be acceptable without the inclusion of an explanation on this object.

[klinker]

When I think of Boeing airliners hitting a building and leaving their impact mark I think of WTC 1 & 2. The impact point at the Pentagon was an 18 foot round hole. The photographic evidence is there to prove it. It's a no brainer.

[pk_11]

When I think of Boeing airliners hitting a building and leaving their impact mark I think of WTC 1 & 2. The impact point at the Pentagon was an 18 foot round hole. The photographic evidence is there to prove it. It's a no brainer.

18 feet? Photographic evidence suggests otherwise. While the hole ABOVE the wingspan was narrow, the actual damage was far wider, around 90 feet.


These firetrucks are at least 30 feet long: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/kidsroom/firesafe/trucks.html

With that information, I used a firetruck in the pentagon image (on left of image) to judge how wide the hole is.

3 firetrucks (not accounting for a further distance away) go from side to side of the hole. The hole is at least 90 feet. This is after the roof collapsed, fyi.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/[HOD]PK/PentagonHolewidth.jpg

[pk_11]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B]So, it is within the realms of possibility that it was remote controlled, but not that it wasn't a plane? How come? How can a missile, for example, be outside the realms of possibility despite the object in the video which you refuse to admit is not a plane?

It's not outside the realms of possibility at all. Nothing is.

However, it doesn't seem advantagous to use a missle instead of a plane, when the plane was already in the air, hijacked, and other planes had already been used to hit their targets.

Why use a missle instead?

On the same grounds, it is "unrealistic" to use remote-control on any of the planes. At this point I'm thinking they were mind controlled or something of the like. That would be the most efficient way, and require the least amount of covering-up. ("hey, the hijackers DID do it! see!") They probably used real names so it was verifyable on record, even if they didn't check to see if those people were still alive. (explaining the alleged reports of some hijackers still being alive.) Mohammad Atta, for example, was last heard from on September 12th, 2001. He was probably offed to destroy evidence after that.

(sorry, I started thinking aloud)

What about the size? Is your superimposed example to scale?

No, my point was to show that the shapes are comparable, not sizes. Although just from eyeballing it, it doesn't look too far off to me. If you'd like to double-check that go ahead.

Because I think it deserves an explanation, don't you?

Just because you're unable or unwilling to explain it away doesn't mean that I have to stop insisting on an explanation for it. It's there, I see it, you see it...now what is it?

No theory you put forward can be acceptable without the inclusion of an explanation on this object.

That is a bad, blurred image (even more distorted by the likes of youtube) of the tip of *something*. Another problem stems from this being a low quality, pretty cheap budget camera from the looks of it. (it only takes a picture every .5 seconds, I believe).

I'll agree that it doesn't look like a plane. Then again, I could show you a distorted picture of a squirrel and say "hey, it doesn't look like a squirrel! See!"

What I did was show another image from another camera, which shows something much closer to a plane. Neither of these images are proof in themselves of either of our views. I'm just trying to explain that I don't believe the evidence provided is enough to conclude that no plane was involved in the pentagon crash at all, and that the evidence is arguable at best.

[klinker]

18 feet? Photographic evidence suggests otherwise. While the hole ABOVE the wingspan was narrow, the actual damage was far wider, around 90 feet.


These firetrucks are at least 30 feet long: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/kidsroom/firesafe/trucks.html

With that information, I used a firetruck in the pentagon image (on left of image) to judge how wide the hole is.

3 firetrucks (not accounting for a further distance away) go from side to side of the hole. The hole is at least 90 feet. This is after the roof collapsed, fyi.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/[HOD]PK/PentagonHolewidth.jpg


Your trucks are not to scale my friend and by then the roof had collapsed. No matter because I will not be convinced that an airliner size plane hit the Pentagon. It was a missile and the events of that day were a heavily orchestrated and precision engineered operation put together by the neo con globalists after being ordered to do so by their controllers whatever name you wish to give to them.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s64/Boff_album/impact.jpg

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/entireplane.jpg

...and not even the wings could escape the the black hole...it swallowed up everything.

Not!

[tinmenace]

What would you say caused this hole on one of the inner rings? Perfectly round isn't it?

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/hole1.jpg

[tinmenace]

This object was claimed to be from the 757 engine of the plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon.

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/rotor2.jpg

A 757 uses either a Pratt & Whitney PW 2000 series engine or a Rolls Royce RB211 engine. Each of the turbofans used in either of these engines is approximately 7 feet in diameter.

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/757engine.jpg

I don't think so....

[armitage_vi]

Yeah I mean I've never believed the story of the 747 (757?) hitting the Pentagon.. between that and WTC 7 those were the first things I saw and went "COVER UP"!!!!

[pk_11]

Your trucks are not to scale my friend and by then the roof had collapsed.

The roof had collapsed, but only where there was nothing under it to support it. Hence it's pretty obvious that the damage was as wide as the collapse.

And yes, my trucks aren't to scale... they're LARGER than they would be. See the fire truck on the left of the picture? That's in the original picture, and IS to scale. I just copy/pasted 3 of them across the hole, but they should be smaller because they're further away, I just didn't make them smaller.

Thus by simple observation the hole is at least 90 feet.

No matter because I will not be convinced that an airliner size plane hit the Pentagon. It was a missile and the events of that day were a heavily orchestrated and precision engineered operation put together by the neo con globalists after being ordered to do so by their controllers whatever name you wish to give to them.

You should keep a more open mind, really. Having such a prefounded belief like that is not much better than the people who dismiss conspiracy theories without looking at the evidence.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s64/Boff_album/impact.jpg

about that picture... it is pretty obvious that a plane hit. The only off thing is where the tailsection should have made some damage, but that alone doesn't prove that no plane hit it.

[tinmenace]

...about that picture... it is pretty obvious that a plane hit. The only off thing is where the tailsection should have made some damage, but that alone doesn't prove that no plane hit it.

So, it went into that hole, all of it, left no trace of anything, but left the wooden reel in place?

[pk_11]

So, it went into that hole, all of it, left no trace of anything, but left the wooden reel in place?

1) When the plane hit, it got torn apart. Parts of the plane were strewn all through that portion of the building. Most are inside, because their velocity continued through the hole a little ways. There aren't many pieces of the plane outside for this reason. Same thing that happened with the wtcs... a few pieces of the plane shot through out the other side, but most of the plane was destroyed when it hit.

2) It hit at an angle, so it didn't touch them... Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been answered or not, but who's to say that's where they originally rested?

[tinmenace]

1) When the plane hit, it got torn apart. Parts of the plane were strewn all through that portion of the building. Most are inside, because their velocity continued through the hole a little ways. There aren't many pieces of the plane outside for this reason. Same thing that happened with the wtcs... a few pieces of the plane shot through out the other side, but most of the plane was destroyed when it hit.

2) It hit at an angle, so it didn't touch them... Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been answered or not, but who's to say that's where they originally rested?

Strewn through all parts of the building, eh? I don't see anything outside that hole. You'd think that things that couldn't miraculously fold and completely disappear would have left some kind of mark on the building outside, or at least some debris.

But, you still haven't answered my question (again!). How is it possible that the plane entered at ground level and didn't completely destroy that wooden reel right at the entrance to the hole?

[klinker]

1) When the plane hit, it got torn apart. Parts of the plane were strewn all through that portion of the building. Most are inside, because their velocity continued through the hole a little ways. There aren't many pieces of the plane outside for this reason. Same thing that happened with the wtcs... a few pieces of the plane shot through out the other side, but most of the plane was destroyed when it hit.

2) It hit at an angle, so it didn't touch them... Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been answered or not, but who's to say that's where they originally rested?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion PK and you are no different but ffs get a grip will you please.

[pk_11]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion PK and you are no different but ffs get a grip will you please.

I just don't see the point of using a missle instead of a plane. If someone would answer that I may be a little more open minded toward the missle theory.

But, you still haven't answered my question (again!). How is it possible that the plane entered at ground level and didn't completely destroy that wooden reel right at the entrance to the hole?

Like I said, the plane probably didn't hit them as it entered the hole on an angle. If you look at the height of the object (be it a plane or a missle) in the pentagon videos, it is still above ground level when it's coming in.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. Like jeffangel said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just don't let your opinion stop you from seeing both sides of an argument.

Besides, debating forensics always tends to go nowhere in the end. >_>

[tinmenace]

Anyway, I'm done debating this. Like jeffangel said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just don't let your opinion stop you from seeing both sides of an argument.

I have looked at both sides of the argument, and the plane theory simple cannot be true, too many impossibilities. Thanks for your input....Cya round the forum

[illuminist]

Isn't it another dialectic debate? Isn't it the case that it was used as symbolic use? i.e a Pentagon.

[tinmenace]

Isn't it another dialectic debate? Isn't it the case that it was used as symbolic use? i.e a Pentagon.

Well, everything is symbolic with these guys. They don't miss a trick.

[illuminist]

Indeed. Though my point being that the whole ''what hit the pentagon'' is creating the 'left-right' paridign discussion.

...Though my own thought is that the more they created this bogus discussion of what hit, the more energy the Illumati are getting form the symbolic pentagon.

[tinmenace]

...the more energy the Illumati are getting form the symbolic pentagon.



On that I disagree. It's weakening and frightening them. Don't you feel it?

They thought they were SO clever, and that we were so very stupid and gullible. They never expected this response. So, the more we let them know that WE know what they're up to, the more pathetic they become.

[cn4m]

okay, this is what i think. that youtube video is the only video i have seen, and it definitely looks like a missile, but its blurry, and could be a plane.

hani hanjour was not capable of pulling off that manovre, inside the pentagon they thought it was military aircraft.

if the plane disentegrated on impact, why did it tear a perfect hole through all those walls, and also, those jet engines dont bust into a milion pieces. not possible.

third, the photos you are cropping firetrucks over the later collapsed building(which is what happens when a missile hits a building, there is a shock wave, that breaks things) the firetrucks are actually smaller, look at the angle of that picture, the trucks are way farther away than the building, closer to the road, but not the photographer.

another thing, witnesses smelled cordite and saw a silvery flash. jet fuel wont make that happen.

and, all the good video was gone instantly, this was either to create doubts, so they can discredit 911 truth movement, or because they wanted to cover something up.

oh yeah, not to mention that the flight that hit the pentagon, is still listed as active, same as flight 93, but the ones that clearly hit the trade centres are reported demolished.

anyway, this is a topic that should not be debated this strongly. there is too much focus on the pentagon, while there is nearly no story about flight 93.

we need to tell people about the people standing in the holes where the planes hit the towers(where there was a fire hot enough to melt all that steel haha) yet there were people standing in there screaming for help.

or the collapse of wtc7

or the reason behind it and how it worked to well in favor of the bush administration.

so please, whether a plane hit the pentagon or a missile hit it, we all know who made it happen, and it sure wasnt extremest islamic terrorists.

[i_am]

Please explain this pk, anyone:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7691/066largekv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



EXIT HOLE

The Pentagon exit hole is one of the most anomalous features of the Pentagon attack. It is 310 feet away from the impact area, near perfectly round and absolutely inexplicable in terms of the composite nose of a Boeing 757-200 "punching out" through it. The other sore thumb about it is that it's not explained in the Building Performance Report, the Shoring Report, the Arlington County After-Action Report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

[tinmenace]

BUSH INSIDER CLAIMS WTC COLLAPSE BOGUS

DEMOLITION MORE LIKELY

By Greg Szymanski

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/wtcdemo.jpg


A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus,” saying it is likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the twin towers and adjacent building No. 7.

“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9-11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling,” said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s “next to impossible” that 19 Arab terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9-11.

“It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7,” said Reynolds from his offices at Texas A&M. “If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

“More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9-11 right.”

However, Reynolds said “getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9-11.

HASTILY REMOVED

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was hastily removed by the federal government prior to independent investigation. Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence. The recent 9-11 commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9-11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

• Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.

• When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

• The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.

• FDNY firefighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9-11 gag order.

• Even the flawed 9-11 commission report acknowledges that “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”

• Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9-11.

• The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

• WTC-7 was unharmed by any airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and 12th floors of this 47-story steel building, yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

• WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

• It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

NUMEROUS HOLES

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has ignored all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Hard evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, but FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9-11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II.”

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

“The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day,” said Reynolds. “The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.”



Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

American Free Press (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bush_insider.html)

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/WTC_Squibs.gif



.

[redman]

I don't understand people who come on to a forum like this arguing the toss about this subject and bring absolutely nothing new to discuss.


It's very simple, show me actually footage of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon and not that crappy footage of what actually give me more reason to think it was a missile cos I most definitely do not see no Boeing 757.

This happened 6 years ago... 6 years ago for fuck sake. And we are still discussing what the fuck hit the Pentagon and the whole official story of what happened that day. So you have to ask yourselves, why are we not getting the answers, why is it the people who are asking the questions are getting ridiculed by the mainstream media and while all this is going on absolutely nothing gets resolved or answered by the government.

If one of my family members died on September 11th 2001, I would fucking be disgusted with the Government and the lack of evidence they have produced to back up their story.

I mean my street where I live is off a main road and there are 6 visible CCTV camera's on that street which you can see. Thats some ordinary street in the northwest of England... So can you imagine how many camera's would be filming the Pentagon 24/7.... But still all we get is that shitty footage of " Something " hitting the Pentagon. Sorry, it ain't good enough.

What really winds me up is the deuch bags out there that get all eat up when you get people asking questions, or they start ridiculing people for asking the Government to come up with some answers. Do these people not want to know exactly what the fuck happened that day ??


So this is a fact, none of us know for sure what hit the Pentagon. The fact none of us know for sure must mean we still ain't been given any evidence ( that we know is out there ) to back up the Governments claims.

The fact it's been 6 years and the government ain't answered zip and just go about their business like it's just another day at the office really fucking winds me up. This proves that the vast majority are brainwashed and are quite happy getting on with their sad pathetic lives just as long as they are OK and nothing ever bad happens like what happened on 9 11 happens to them.

[tinmenace]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I know it wasn't a plane. That much is evident.

[redman]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I know it wasn't a plane. That much is evident.


The fact they have not shown us any footage of a actual plane hitting the Pentagon speaks volumes.

[david ickes bike]

It's too low quality, and motion blurred, to make it out. Although another video released shows the entire plane for a single frame.


As to the plane getting that low without marking the grass... It is possible, from the videos as well as the damage I'm guessing it just came down at a slight angle.


And obviously Hani didn't have the experience for such a manuever. Either he was the luckiest person alive, or that plane was remote-controlled. (or he was an mlk victim with a second personality programmed for flying).

But a Boeing is technically able to pull off what happened... it's just nearly impossible for a pilot like Hani to do alone.


The reason they are not releasing many videos, then, would probably be to make people over-analyze the pentagon crash and focus on that... then when they release a video of the plane, they can act like they've discredited the entire 9/11 truth movement.



The following is an article by a 9/11 truth site that explains why a plane probably did hit the pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

Also, most eyewitnesses saw the plane, including someone I know.

It's much more likely that the plane was remote controlled. Why would you use a missle? It just causes the need for more of a cover-up, and doesn't really accomplish anything.

It is possible i did it by fluke to freeze the video at the moment of inpact and in the flash you can clearly make out a plane. You can see wings tail fin fuselage engine the lot.

I deleted the web site but i may try again later.

[david ickes bike]

www.911myths.com/index.html

[tinmenace]

The fact they have not shown us any footage of a actual plane hitting the Pentagon speaks volumes.

Precisely.

A heavily guarded building like the Pentagon and only one camera filmed the event? And that camera shows something that is clearly not a plane!

What a crock...

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg

[david ickes bike]

Cant you see a fuselage with a wing that has an engine hanging on it?

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/757planenose.jpg
This is what a nose of a 757 looks like. See how far back the wings sit?
Notice also how the engine hangs in front of the wing?





http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg
This is not a 757, no matter how bad you want it to be one.





http://www.globalfailure.com/images/planesizepentagon.jpg
This is the size comparison of a 757 against the Pentagon. Kinda big right?
Can you see how high off the ground the fuselage would be if it was a plane? Source (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html)
Now look at the second photo again.

[splinterg]

Who has watched this video all the way through?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

Go forward to 2:28..look at the side of the wall where the police car goes left..there is a sign on a wall or something like that..something comes into view at 2:28 floats along the side of the building and bends right..take note above the railing divider..and then goes outta screen to the right 2:43

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

[tinmenace]

Definitely something there. I've never noticed that before. Wow!

[mitch_lane]

pk_11 wrote:

I just don't see the point of using a missle instead of a plane. If someone would answer that I may be a little more open minded toward the missle theory.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is speed and the second is accuracy.
The Twin Towers were soft targets in that they were not defended in any way. The Pentagon is reputed to have missile batteries as part of its defence system. This isn't confirmed of course but I would be very surprised if the building did not have some sort of protective capability and so can be considered a hard target.
A commercial airplane, even travelling at top speed-which would make it very difficult to control, particularly with reference to the type of manoeuvere that Flight 77 was supposed to have made- would be a pretty easy target for any computer controlled missile defence system. However an attacking misssile makes the situation much more of a matter of luck because it is now missile against missile- not missile against airplane: and if the attacking missile has the advantage of being "clued in" on the defence system it is attacking then its odds of a hit are increased.
And remember, the chances of a defensive missile knocking an attacking missile out of the sky are quite poor: note the Patrioits lack of success against lumbering scuds in the Gulf War.
Secondly, accuracy. If the Illuminati is behind the attacks of 9/11 then they care little if nothing for the destruction of the Twin Towers and the lives of those that were lost. In fact it is likely that they used the destruction of those two business edifices and that of WTC7 to clear the board of many financial issues concerning insider trading, Enron, and a certain couple of trillion dollars that the Pentagon had lost, announced by Rumsfield only a day or so before.
But the Pentagon is an organisation and a symbol that the Illuminati need and so "damage limitation" came into play and the the wall that was hit was the only one that had been recently re-inforced. Targeting like this is common place with missiles such as Tomahawks and has to be more accurate than an airplane making a tight, spiralling turn, slewing off height that it's control software shouldn't let it attempt and and then flying almost nap of the earth without burying itself into the the ground.
It may also be of interest that a pentagon is a heart of a Pentagram. Not always a bad thing depending on its orientation. Satellite photo's should show the Pentagon's affiliation.
Also of possible interest is that any star or pentagram that is distorted or has a broken side is considered to be an occult symbol and that the date of the Pentagon's Ground Breaking ceremony was the 11th of September 1941.
Hopefully some of this may illustrate why a missile could have been used against the Pentagon, rather than an airplane.

[tinmenace]

Good post Mitch

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/planesizepentagon.jpg

One more thing about this photo....

See how the engines would have to be almost dragging on the ground in order for the plane to have hit the first floor. That would have to have been a really really good pilot not to have touched the ground one time. Basically flying the plane mere inches above the ground. :rolleyes:

[archangel]

Why do you insist on waving around only that particular picture?

This is another shot from another surveillence camera, clearly showing the plane.

I have super-imposed a picture of flight 77 over the video to compare shapes. It lines up well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/[HOD]PK/pentagonplanecopy2.jpg


please tell me your joking about this picture.

The Part of the picture you are pretending to be a plane is part of the tree line.
The object that hit the building is just the gray squib.

The Trees are not part of the plane

missle/plane/object is higlighted in pink. PLEASE NOTE--The part above that is trees. you can easily confuse the trees as part of the plane in the still shot. watch the video. You can clearly see the part you are thinking is a plane is part of the tree line.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/AndreConan/plane77.jpg

[redman]

Who has watched this video all the way through?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

Go forward to 2:28..look at the side of the wall where the police car goes left..there is a sign on a wall or something like that..something comes into view at 2:28 floats along the side of the building and bends right..take note above the railing divider..and then goes outta screen to the right 2:43

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

I've just been looking at other versions of the footage and all of them have that object in it. What the fuck is it... :D It's like a mini UFO.


Even on this official footage showing wreckage of the plane etc, It's speeded up but you can still clearly see this object fly round the building and then fly outwards away from the building... :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&mode=related&search=


Check this out at 2:57, it's speeded up but it is still clearly visible. Man, that is fuking weird. :D

Care to explain that one...PK 11. :D

[david ickes bike]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/757planenose.jpg
This is what a nose of a 757 looks like. See how far back the wings sit?
Notice also how the engine hangs in front of the wing?





http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg
This is not a 757, no matter how bad you want it to be one.





http://www.globalfailure.com/images/planesizepentagon.jpg
This is the size comparison of a 757 against the Pentagon. Kinda big right?
Can you see how high off the ground the fuselage would be if it was a plane? Source (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html)
Now look at the second photo again.






The plane is not square on in the frame.

[niftygifter]

Dude,
It was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon building. Not any plane.
It was witnessed by a jogger as well as the obvious small hole in the side of the building:)

Watch the DVD "In plane site"


Nifty:D

[splinterg]

There is a possibility that it was neither..not a plane or a missile..think about the bunker bomb technology..something flew straight through dropped its payload and exits the way it came in..the answer is staring you right in the face..

I mean afterall..why was wreckage never found at pentagon? Cos there werent any

[david ickes bike]

There is a possibility that it was neither..not a plane or a missile..think about the bunker bomb technology..something flew straight through dropped its payload and exits the way it came in..the answer is staring you right in the face..

I mean afterall..why was wreckage never found at pentagon? Cos there werent any

Wreckage was found.

[splinterg]

Wreckage was found.

Says who? If you had of been observing the pentagon the moment it happened ..you would have no media bias..no one telling you its a plane..cos planes are coming down everywhere etc..That damage was most definatley not caused by a plane crash..

We have the great gift of hearing..There is a distinct difference in sound between that of a plane engine screaming in over your head and that of a missile..I dont believe its a plane..no matter how much wreckage you throw at me..it wasnt there

[david ickes bike]

Were you there?

[splinterg]

Were you there?

Were you?

Similarities..again no plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&mode=related&search=

[tinmenace]

The plane is not square on in the frame.

Even if it's at an angle, where is the elevated part that the pilots sit in? Where's the window that the pilots look out of?

If it is coming toward the camera, it wouldn't have hit where it did. It would have hit closer to the camera. Did it make a sharp turn without once touching the ground?

I've spun that object around in my mind, and I just cannot see a plane, and I don't see a wing either.

[tinmenace]

Brilliant 9/11 video, called Painful Deceptions (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful+deceptions&total=143&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), with outstanding evidence and questions that cannot be answered with the current official version of events.

IMPEACH AND IMPRISON BUSH AND HIS ENTIRE MURDEROUS CARTEL !

Thanks Phoenix for the heads-up on this one! ;)

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/avatars/puppywig.jpg


http://www.globalfailure.com/images/churchsignfromdog.jpg

[tinmenace]

I got this via email....


How did explosives get into the WTC?

VIDEO (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/339746/power_down_in_trade_centers_weekend_before_9_11/)

[irie_dave]

I don't see a plane.

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/nota757.jpg


Does that look like a plane to you? Really?

This is the nose of a 757. I don't see any similarity.

http://images1.jetphotos.net/images/img2/2/20060722bab757g-bpei01.jpg.21524.jpg.thumb

Shouldn't there be a way to put this whole issue to rest by calculating how far away the camera was & how big a 757 should be from that distance? Has anyone in the 9/11 research field done this?

[tinmenace]

Yeah, there are videos and photos that show the scale. In fact I think you might find them on this thread...back a few pages.

Besides the scale, that thing circled in red does not resemble a 757, no matter how I look at it. So, for me, it's more than a scale issue.


Edit: Also, that object is coming straight in, low to the ground, this maneuver would have been impossible for a 757.

[irie_dave]

Yeah, there are videos and photos that show the scale. In fact I think you might find them on this thread...back a few pages.

Besides the scale, that thing circled in red does not resemble a 757, no matter how I look at it. So, for me, it's more than a scale issue.


Edit: Also, that object is coming straight in, low to the ground, this maneuver would have been impossible for a 757.






Heh little bit of laziness on my part. But if the size according to scale is incorrect, how can anyone argue that it could have been the 757 it's supposed to have been? (more directed towards those that do argue this I guess)

Then I guess the fact that it doesn't look like a 757 & the maneuvering being impossible/extremely difficult for a 757 is supporting evidence as well.

[irie_dave]

Who has watched this video all the way through?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

Go forward to 2:28..look at the side of the wall where the police car goes left..there is a sign on a wall or something like that..something comes into view at 2:28 floats along the side of the building and bends right..take note above the railing divider..and then goes outta screen to the right 2:43

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

Holy shit!!

[tinmenace]

You're right! And this is why it's so frustrating. What is it that people don't understand? What keeps their denial so stubbornly in place?

[neutron flux]

Just in case no one had seen this , I thought I'd post it:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

[survivor1]

missile

[tinmenace]

http://vb.spiritual-nature.com/images/smilies/icon_bump.gif

[dave52]

Who has watched this video all the way through?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

Go forward to 2:28..look at the side of the wall where the police car goes left..there is a sign on a wall or something like that..something comes into view at 2:28 floats along the side of the building and bends right..take note above the railing divider..and then goes outta screen to the right 2:43

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

WTF...? Is this genuine, or is someone playing with out heads. It looks like a small flying saucer...

[mercuryrapids]

Looked like a police car to me... Probably the same one that drove by earlier. ??

Note the dark stripe:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2936/policecar1wn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2085/policecar2fv0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/6843/policecar3vd6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.sott.net/signs/images/parody_pentagon_facade.jpg

[tinmenace]

WTF...? Is this genuine, or is someone playing with out heads. It looks like a small flying saucer...

:eek: I know! It's for real.

[dave52]

Doh, I'm an idiot - it is a police car. You can see it at about 1:26 in this other video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k

The funny thing is - it probably made more of a mess of the lawn than the "plane".

Thanks Mercuryrapids... :)

[mercuryrapids]

The funny thing is - it probably made more of a mess of the lawn than the "plane".

Thanks Mercuryrapids... :)

I'm sure it did, seeing as the 'plane' somehow managed not to touch the lawn. I wonder how many bits of 'wreckage' got hauled out of the boot (trunk) and scattered around? :rolleyes:

No probs.

[tinmenace]

Yep and it squeezed into that hole you see there and didn't even hit that barrel....amazing! :eek:

http://spiritual-nature.com/images/pentagonholequestion.jpg

[phildee3]

Who has watched this video all the way through?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8

Go forward to 2:28..look at the side of the wall where the police car goes left..there is a sign on a wall or something like that..something comes into view at 2:28 floats along the side of the building and bends right..take note above the railing divider..and then goes outta screen to the right 2:43

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?



It looks like a reflection of a police car to me.