Pentagon hit by a plane or not???

First of all I think it is BS, it is something to consider.....
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

 

Some say the missile was launched from the Texas Book Suppository, but we all really know where it came from- THE GRASSY KNOLL!

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

it is believable. i didn't say i believe it though. if i could see those tapes from those different places and see the plane come in then i wouldn't believe it at all. but since the FBI has taken up those tapes and has never relaesed any of them, yet they have already released the whole 9/11 report and all the tapes of the other accidents, i am considering that to be truth. i do entertain crazy theories.

eric

 

i do not believe it was hit...
there is no luggage
not airplane parts
no sign of a airplane wing on the ground
no landing gear
no nothing.
plus they were very quick to start the clean up
the fires were not even out b-4 they started to clean it up

i did read somewhere that a misile from an american fighter shot at it
also the video of the hit looks nothing like a plane

 

So if it wasn't the airplane in question that hit the Pentagon........where did that plane go?

Is it still flying around somewhere, did it crash in the ocean?

You can say all day that something else hit the building but where is the explanation for what happened to the airplane that was hijacked that they say "didn't" hit the Pentagon?......they don't say anything about that.

 

The Pentagon Attack Frame-Up
Overview
Numerous things about Pentagon attack were suspicious from the start.

Eyewitnesses report seeing an approaching twin-engine jetliner.
There are no photos or videos show an approaching jetliner or substantial remains of such an aircraft.
Comparing a 757 to documented impact damage shows them to be incommensurate.
Officials improperly removed evidence, and seized evidence yet to be released.

What Hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

What first made me suspicious
Lack of pictures of jetliner attack
Lack of air defense
Amazing approach maneuver ... supposedly by pilot reported to be incompetent
Evidence contradicts account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Jetliner dimensions versus damage to Pentagon
Damage to immediate surroundings
Absence of aircraft debris
Skeptics embraced the drone/missile attack theory
Meanwhile, eyewitness accounts spoke of approaching jetliner
Government coverup -- more sophisticated than first thought

What Raised My Suspicions
In the weeks after the attack, several things about the official story stood out as suspicious.

no photographs or video of a jetliner approaching or impacting Pentagon
no military response to protect the capital and military headquarters
Part of Pentagon hit was mostly unoccupied
No high-level military officials were killed
The amazing aerobatic approach to the Pentagon
Dubious piloting skills of alleged hijackers

The Lack of Military Intercepts

How did a large aircraft attack the heart of the U.S. military an hour after the nation came under attack?

The Pentagon was hit 1 hour 29 minutes into crisis.
8:15: Flight 11 went off course.
9:43: The Pentagon was struck.
Flight 77 had been flying toward the capital for about an hour.
8:46: Flight 77 first went off course.
Planes are easily tracked by radar, even with transponders off.
Andrews Air Force Base is 11 miles from the Pentagon.
Andrews AFB had 2 combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
Scramble times (fighters airborne) are 2-5 minutes.
Travel time is under 1 minute.




Building Damage Pattern Compared to 757-200
Pattern of damage to buildings hit by aircraft is somewhat predictable. Function of:

Size, shape, mass, construction of aircraft
Construction of building
Trajectory of aircraft
Velocity of aircraft
Trajectory, inferred from downed lamp-posts, gives wall angle of about 45 degrees. Velocity was about 400 MPH, similar to WTC attack planes.


* At 400 MPH, velocity of jet is like bullet
* Kinetic energy ~ velocity^2
* Jets left impressions in Twin Towers all the way to ends of wings and tails because of their kinetic energy.

A 757-200 is similar in weight and speed to the 767-222s that hit Twin Towers.

 

there never was a airplane
they just said that there was
all the people were on flight 93

 

and if you noticed, they never onced talked with family members from the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. unlike with the wtc and the crash in pennsylvania, which was significantly less in damage. if there were people on the plane, then where are their family members?

 

that all has to do with timing
the wtc got hit, so they blamed whatever happend to the pentagon on the same thing.
or it was backwards
some dumbass in "R&D" at the pentagon got a little over excited, made a mess
and the needed a cover sombody's butt so they crashed a plane into the wtc

 

read this
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/slides.html

 

It was aliens in a flying saucer. Flighr 77 is in Area 51 and the passengers are all being treated to free anal probes and implants by Gray aliens. There were no tails or wings left over at the WTC site, either. Nobody bothered to talk to the survivors of the two flights that hit the WTC, either. The WTC debris was improperly disposed of, also. None of the men who hit the WTC got glowing recommendations from their flight instructors, either. How many impact studies have been conducted on large stone bldgs. with 757s, in order to predict what effects may occur. The 757 can take off, fly, and even land on autopilot (under ideal weather conditions), it doesn't take an air ace to fly one. Most of this eyewitness evidence is from untrained observers under great stress, never a reliable source of information. Remember Flight 800, and it's mysterious "missle track". FAA radar tracks transponders, it doesn't have the ability to track physical objects.

 

WHAT??? This is very strange! Hadn't heard this one before and have NO IDEA what to think of it whatsoever.


I would like to know where the debris, wings and tail section pieces were though? That does seem odd considering the many other crash scenes we've seen (not just what this video shows).

Didn't they recover any bodies? I didn't see that mentioned. I couldn't get any pictures from that "slide" website (the second link) to work.

It still is a tragedy, because it shifts the focus from a terrible event to this event (which may be another tragedy or some odd ruse) and may make us forget the horror of the day.

 

/me sighs

Obviously no one took ANY time to read the link I posted. I recommend you read: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

That flash file shows "Hey! Look at this damage, doesn't look like an air plane ... Structural damage caused part of the Pentagon to collapse." Funnily enough, they use pictures of the structural damage collapse to show that there were no wings.

 

Since when did WTC plane passengers make any calls? Plus, they didn't know they were on a path to death, while the Pennsalvania (horrible butchering of english) flight there was a known risk when they tried to take it back.

Sure there are, just none shown by propaganda, look at some outside resources.

So they ran around in fire trying to clean up a conspiracy and no one saw them.

Arguable, looked plenty like a plane in shape to me, no one can say what it was due to quality.

Very believable, especially with no basis.

Or hey!!! GOD came upon the Earth and just magically steered the planes.

 

OKAY - I read it...good stuff and it makes sense.

I don't think any "government officialS" (plural!) were thinking clearly and definitively to stage whatever you want to call it after such a horrible, tense, tragic and frightening calamity was taking place elsewhere in the nation.

This helped:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/obscure2.jpg
where is the wing damage
in the wtc we all could see the wing damage and flight 93 you could see the wing damage on the ground.

 

Again, READ THE SNOPES LINK!!!!!
The wtc had no where NEAR the kind of steel reinforcement that that pent had.

 

Yes they did recover bodies.
A friend lost a cousin there.

 

i am done talking about this......
what ever happened it was a very very bad day for all of us
R.I.P. THOSE WHO DIED

 

All of these conspiracy sites are run be morons that know nothing about their topics, but know how to run a website.

Where I used to work, we were responsible for crash damage removal for the airport. And regretably, I helped remove several. We were also next door to the local NTSB office, & were involved with several crash investigations with them.

Each crash is somewhat unique, but in general, crashes that have recognizable airplane parts left are take-off/landing accidents where the angle of impact is shallow, allowing the plane/wreckage to slide along the ground & disipate speed & energy without crushing the structures. In any high angle/head on impact with anything solid, engines and stronger fuselage structures tend to punch holes, and everything else turns into unrecognizable confetti. And if there is a serious fire, the aluminum parts all melt.

WTC showed impact damage from the wings because it's shell had glass and cosmetic steel trim that could be damaged by aluminum wings. Pentagon was reinforced heavy structure. You figure it out.

Total Bull Sh*t.

 

ok ok... im a canadian.. but i still up to date even though im a student... first of all bush and the government are a bunch of idiots that think they can scare the public into doing whatever they want... i have a couple of thoeries and they both kinda make sense... maybe a missle of some sort went off by accident and hit the pentagon? maybe the missle thought it saw a plane heading to the pentagon by accident and fired? i dont noe where that plane was that crashed on a field... if it crashed near washington could the missle headed for that plane? ( i might not noe what im talking about that.. dont kill me ) and maybe the government just used the plane theory to cover up a screw up?? after all we noe that the USA has had some problems with ground to air missle (patriot missle) if you dont noe what that is.. its what the USA thought was the "miricle missle" bak in the 1980's during the first iraq war... anyways this is all propoganda.. but its still quite sad that all those people had to lose their lives in 911, and the rediculous war that followed it... i suggest you watch farenheight 911... it was a good movie.. real eye opener

 

and GT open your mind man... you really think bush is tellin the truth?

 

Open your mind too much and things will fall out.

 

Actually, people on all 4 planes made calls before the end. Here are a list of a few of the more well known calls:

Todd Beamer - United Airlines flight 93
Tom Burnett - United Airlines flight 93
Mark Bingham - United Airlines flight 93
Jeremy Glick - United Airlines flight 93
Peter Hanson - United Airlines flight 175
Barbara K. Olson - American Airlines flight 77
Madeline Amy Sweeney - American Airlines flight 11
Betty Ong - American Airlines flight 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Communications

 

/me nods

I stand corrected

Propaganda propaganda propaganda. It's extremely unlikely that happened, or hey, hundreds of millions of people can just be fooled just like that. Or maybe a magical plane didn't just suddenly disappear and something magical didn't just fly into the pentagon.

You can't cover-up things this large, you really thing Bush would LIE and then when some scandal is found out get his ass impeached?

/me sighs yet again.

Read the link, read the link, read the link.

 

Has nothing to do with Bush. Has to do with real evidence. As has been noted; people DID lose real friends/family on that plane. Eyewitnesses and cameras recorded the approach and the aftermath. Crash damage and debris at the site is consistent with WHAT I KNOW FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE to be appropriate to an aircraft crash. Morons on the conspiracy sites ignore all the facts that don't fit their wet dreams & pretend they're onto something big.

 

This is what it comes down to...hundreds of people aren't going to lie and say their loved ones were or were not on a certain plane for the sake of some government cover-up!!

And I'll edit my own quote:

 

Why is it always non-americans who think they know more about our country and goverment than we do?

 

Who knows. This particular absurdity was dreamed up by a French author, with no credible evidence to support him.

The whole thing reminds me of the Neo-Nazi claims that the Nazi death camps never happened, despite countless eyewitnesses, pictures, film, paper records that the Nazis left, remains at the sites, etc, etc..

It's not an effort to find truth, it's an effort to defend the perpetrators and take them out of the equation. For the terminally paranoid, just having one more "government lie" is all the excuse they need.

Of course Uncle Sugar doesn't tell us everything that goes on. But believing everything is a lie is as naive as believing that everything they tell us is the truth. And believing it on the flimsy non-evidence that they present, while ignoring the concrete evidence on the other side is just plain stupid.

 

In my opinion, just looking at that website's conclusion, I don't have any doubts it was a plane. Check it out:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/conclusion.html

The Pentagon had been reinforced, so it was not going to show a lot of damage compared to the glass structure of the WTC towers. But still, take a look at the outside finish of those walls where this guy shows the wings would hit. Something with the wingspan of a 757 hit the building because you can see the width of the damage to the outside walls matches the wingspan he shows. If it was a missle, there would be no external damage, just a hole. At that speed the wings would have smashed against the walls and then pulled into the building with the fuselage. Which, apparently, is what happened. The Snopes site linked earlier seems pretty accurate to me.

It was flight 175 and I feel for the families of those lost that have to go through things like this too.

 

We seem to have overloaded his widdle web site. "Bandwidth limit exceeded. Try again later."

Actually, the wings would not have bent and been pulled into the hole in the building. They would have sheared at the engines and disintegrated totally against the building. And looking at what little is left after an impact like that, even if out in a flat field, it's frequently hard to imagine that the little bit of remaining junk could ever have been an airplane.

 

What amazes me is the fools who have decided to believe that they live in the most evil, oppresive country in the world. I work with a guy from Burma (Myannmar) who had to flee his home and learn a whole new way of life here in the U.S. because he made the mistake of wanting to do something we all take for granted, vote for a leader of his choice. There are places where where imprisonment and death are rewards for criticizing the govt (China), genocide is govt policy (Dharfur in Sudan), and govt cover-ups are the norm (Check into the Russians handling of the theater and school hostage sutuations) and self-loathing Americans somehow equate these with the actions of the U.S govt, which isn't perfect though far better than any other, and grasp any crackpot theory which confirms their contempt for their own country.

 

i think you all can bite me, first of all i said i was canadian because i wanted you to all understand that i might not noe what im talking about and scince when was it wrong to speak your mind???? i guess scince bush got in you noe if you believe bush, and cnn, and all that crap, good for you! i dont and i feel good about that.. so whatever..

 

You have the right to express any opinion you have, but you don't have the right to expect others to accept it unconditionally and without comment. If you can't accept criticism, don't offer any yourself.

 

President Bush doesn't talk to me, and I don't watch CNN. I get information from all over. I wasn't grumbling about YOU, only about the totally bogus conspiracy theory that the government blew up the WTC and Pentagon. THAT theory is so full of holes it wouldn't make Swiss cheese. And I'm always interested in all sides of a story, and am pretty good at putting ALL the pieces together, noting inconsistencies and discrepancies and conflicts, and smelling a rat when things aren't what they seem. TWA Flight 800 was taken down by a missile. Source of missile still unproven. Cause of coverup still unproven, although I have definite opinions on it. I do NOT swallow the "official" line, whoever is in the White House. And the White House does NOT control all the news and information out there. But this particular "scandal" is bogus.

I've worked in the aviation industry for 17 years, 13 of those years rubbing elbows with aircraft pilots and mechanics, FAA and NTSB personnel, and around aircraft. And have been an aviation nut all my life. ANY aircraft crash catches my attention; it's my field and my love. So I've seen everything out there on these crashes. It's not hard to find the flaws in the flawed theories. And this one is mostly flawed reasoning by people that understand nothing about aircraft, and very little about investigation.

Proper investigation is to gather ALL the information you can, then formulate a theory that fits ALL the facts. Toss out theories whenever necessary when new facts disprove it and look for a better one.

These guys ALL start with an assumption, then look for pictures, quotes, occasionally actual "facts", but not many of them, and IGNORE any hard evidence that disagrees with their theories. This process is always sensational, always consistent, since they always start out with the same assumption (that the Gov is lying and covering up something sinister) and they even occasionally come up with some right answers. But their method of "investigation" is so flawed that they're usually wrong.

 

Flashing back to 9/11. I just saw two planes crash into the towers out my window. I turn on news radio and heard live reports of witnesses seeing a plane crash into the pentagon. Not a missle, a plane.

Later the news also carried pictures of a plane, or what was left of it in the hole.

The pentagon is 5(?) buildings stacked inside of eachother, so they wouldn't react like a single structure. You can't cross from one structure to another without walking to down a wing to a connecting hallway.

The pentagon also _just_ completed a major renovation that reinforced its exterior shell.

Its just another bs story from someone who wasn't personally affected by the attacks.

 

ok ok i can admit i got a little caught up but how can you explain that the plane was flying strait about 3 feet off the ground when the highway is right beside the pentagon??????? how come there was no wing damage to the pentagon? now im not talking about burns or anything but at least paint scratches? and where are the wings? if the airplane only left a hole that was barely ths size of a fuselage where are the wings? and in the 4 frame video its obvious it wasnt a plane because it was too big, and airplane fuel doesnt burn like that

 

IIt probably was the plane... but man, that is some good flying.... espicailly in a plane that big. My dad has 2 small planes so I hear a lot of flight stories. Geez, 500 MPH 3 feet from the ground, in huge plane..... I don't know, if you can do that your first time out after flight school. Unless there was some sort of ground effect happening..... that would explain it.

 

Did you do a complete, detailed analysis to get that distance, or did you pull it out of your hat? The Pentagon was designed with an attack by the Soviet Air Force in mind, short of a nuclear warhead. It was made to take a lot of damage. The wings went the same place the WTC planes wings went (no one found them, either. Perhaps planes didn't hit the Twin Towers, either). Aluminum melts at a relatively low temperature (I've melted it on a charcoal grill and made belt buckles with it) and can even burn (It's a major component of some solid rocket fuels) and magnesium is highly flammable. The fuel from the WTC planes burned hot enough to soften and even partially melt the steel superstructure of the Twin Towers and caused their collapse (Yes, the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of even a jetliner, the designers unfortunately didn't anticipate the effects of a sustained fire on the framework).

 

ok ok... but in the 911 crashes, there was aircraft parts all over the place. and if you look at the explosion and the holes that were put in the buildings, theyre totally different.. im just wondering how do you explain that? i mean no aircraft came out on the other sides of the trade center, how come in the pentagon? and why is the hole on the outside so skinny? its barely the size of a fuselage

 

(sigh) This is the LAST time waster I'm putting in this thread. First of all, eyewitness accounts of aircraft accidents are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate, except for the few that understand what they're seeing, but some always get it right. If you remember, the first eyewitness reports after the first plane hit the WTC were that a "small aircraft" had hit the tower. Obviously wrong. The conspiracy sites carefully pick and choose their witnesses. Here are a bunch more that saw what happened:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
The consipiracy nuts won't show you THOSE reports; they don't fit their theory.
This site has it's OWN theory to push, but does show published photos from that site that clearly show aircraft wreckage. You won't see THAT on your other sites either.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

As far as being a "hot pilot", he wasn't. He was in the wrong place, and made a 270 degree turn, almost a full circle, to point toward his target. Just pointing an aircraft at speed where stalling isn't a factor is not difficult. Landing is difficult and exacting, and none of the hijackers were interesting in polishing landing skills.

As far as flying 3 feet off the ground, that was some "eyewitness" observation, and most other witnesses saw the plane descending before impact, not skimming flat over the ground. If he HAD been low at the end, ground effect would indeed have helped keep him off the ground. Google "ground effect" or go ask a pilot. I'm tired of chasing links. Back in the early supersonic days, Chuck Yeager took a fighter out over a flat salt lake and intentionally TRIED to touch ground at high speed, and couldn't do it. You can fly a plane into the ground, obviously, but low & flat over the ground, the air going UNDER the wings impacts with the ground and causes a pressure wave under the plane that will NOT let you slowly descend to ground level. The faster you're going, the stronger the effect. Even in normal landings, ground effect causes a plane to float a bit before actually touching down, as you lose speed prior to contact.

Now, please go find some other conspiracy to worry about. This one is provably WRONG.

 

You are absolutely right. It is the Bildeburgers, the CFR, aliens and the Antichrist plotting to create a one-world government and force us all to tattoo "666", the mark of the beast, on our foreheads. They also killed Kennedy and framed Oswald, have a warehouse full of 200 MPG carburetor plans to keep us dependent on oil, and keep the truth about flying saucers hidden. If you have read this, it is too late for you, as they will now kill you for knowing too much about their plans. Have a nice day.


P.S.- Wear a hat made of aluminum foil to keep CIA mind-control satellites from taking over your thoughts. It is vital that you go to this link for more info: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html