You have to check out this video on the Pentagon Strike

[lonewolf0507]

Who ever did this has done an outstanding job. It is about 3 megs is size, and loads a little slow.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

[StClone]

1. This looks like something

Bush throw together to support an attack on Iraq.

[JimmyJazz]

2. what is your interpretationof this video and what about the

flight manifests and the people listed as killed on that plane? The film is disturbing, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

[sui generis]

3. this clip does a lot of inference but doesn't really ever make a point

Having worked for Sabre Decision Technologies, I can tell you that it would take a cover up of unprecedented proportion to change data trails, redundant backups, etc. There are existing policies at American and Sabre for dealing with a flight tragedy, including data lockdowns (to prevent the unscrupulous from sharing passenger list), cutting outside network links, etc.

It just seems like they would have to be covering up something so huge that they could step in and create a false accounting of events - what could it have been?

Interesting though - makes you wonder . . .

[onenote]

5. what about the eyewitnesses

who saw a plane flying low over the road, knocking down streetlamps. Two folks that I work with were on their way into work and saw a plane. Where did it go?

onenote

[lonewolf0507]

6. You can not deny the fact

You can not deny the fact that there were no airplane parts found around the Pentagon. Whatever happen to that plane I do not know, but I do know it did not hit the Pentagon. It just does not add up.

[nostamj]

9. a flat out lie.

there are pictures of one of the engines and other large pieces.

this is a silly silly fantasy. and this topic belongs in the 9/11 forum anyway.

[JHB]

10. If there were no parts, what is this?

010911-N-6157F-001 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 11, 2001) -- Wreckage from the hijacked American Airlines FLT 77 sits on the west lawn of the Pentagon minutes after terrorists crashed the aircraft into southwest corner of the building. The Boeing 757 was bound for Los Angeles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U.S. Navy Photo by Journalist 1st Class Mark D. Faram. (RELEASED)


Also:
FBI evidence teams combing the area of impact along the building's perimeter found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, said Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief and search and rescue expert for the Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire Department. No large pieces apparently survived.

Agents also were looking for the plane's black box and flight data recorder
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/

The black boxes were found inside. As were the remains of people who were on the plane.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

So yes, the "fact" can be denied.

It may not look like other plane crashes we've seen, but then again none of those crashed into heavily-reinforced walls like those of the Pentagon.

[Elginoid]

15. it looks like part of someone's tinfoil hat, blowin' in the wind...

seriously tho...those pictures of airplane parts scattered on the lawn of the pentagon are like, so obviously photoshopped that it hurts my brain...

seriously seriously tho-
I wish these people would find a planet of their own. just because you know how to make a flash movie, it doesn't mean that you can ignore the facts and eyewitnesses and the truth.

for the last damn time-
THE FUCKING PLANE HIT THE FUCKING BUILDING.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

18. Other eyewitnesses said it was not a plane

In fact eyewitness testimony is always suspect. Look at the physical evidence.

[RH]

22. No they did not.

I collected eye witness reports back in March 2002 and I have seen all the crap go by since then.

No eyewitness ever said that they saw anything other than an aircraft.

Not one of hundreds of people there to see for themselves has since been known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We would otherwise of course have heard all about it. There must have a dozen previous duplicate threads to follow up this nonsense and not once did was anybody named to gainsay the fact.

[John Doe II]

31. Eyewitness list

Here is the most complete list of eyewitnesses on the net (as far as I know):

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/


The differences and contradictions in their accounts are amazing.

[impe]

28. Eyewittnesses

Have also said they've been aboard the mother ship....

[Rockholm]

8. Indeed frightening. One question.....

What happened to the actual flight that "supposedly" crashed into the Pentagon?

I do agree that there is always wreckage from plane crashes. Hell, the government was able to pull most of TWA 800 from the ocean floor. Just WERE is the wreckage from this crash?

[RH]

25. The remains were buried

at a landfill site, after being sifted through in the Pentagon North Car Park.

The autopsy positively identified passengers.

[lonewolf0507]

4. The Question is " Could they do it ?"

[Randi_Listener]

7. Please debunk this.

My head is spinning right now. Someone please offer a credible refute to this video.

[JHB]

11. Try a look at this:

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

-----excerpt-----
More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.
---------more-----------

[Randi_Listener]

16. Pristine Lawn

What about the aircraft leaving the grass completely unmolested? Even a belly landing aircraft leaves a mark at that speed.

[Elginoid]

20. only if it actually hits the lawn.

the 757 didn't.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Here's how I deal with the inconsistencies...and a guess.

I acknowledge that something big and flying struck the Pentagon with enough force to penetrate through a number of the concentric rings.

For all other things, I rely on my own examination of first-hand accounts and other evidence, like videotape. Do I have an opinion of whether something other than a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon? No. I sure wish I did, it would imply that I'd seen and heard enough testimony and evidence to comfortably draw a conclusion. I have not. Every question in the video is a legitimate one, however some witnesses did describe a large passenger jet "spiraling in" (if I recall, correctly) before the impact. The video did not address these witnesses who would seem to support the official explanation. I cannot recall the names of these persons, just make my own implications that not everyone there disagrees with the explanation put forward.

I still remember the reports of a carbomb outside the state department, I know that information in a situation as fluid as this one can be dubious. If you recall, initial reports of the first plane slamming into the Towers reported it as a light passenger airplane- that sort of thing.

But there is one thing that will nag me forever- a jet that size is a huge machine. Huge. When something that massive slams into a building, as the video noted, the wings would have been sheared off instantly. They should be right outside the building along with the top of the tail. Whatever machine hit the Pentagon punched a hole in it, not the machine's profile. Where are those wings? Why did they not have to drag those enormous burning things from the front of the building to begin efforts to rescue survivors? I haven't seen anything implying they ever had to. Where are those enormous engines? They don't just break into crumbs like a cracker even when slammed at full speed or greater into reinforced concrete.

If this was a coverup.......why? The CIA has done studies on keeping secrets and it's something like "take the number of people who know a secret and square it- that's the number of people who likely know it."(or something to that effect). The only thing I can imagine which might've reasonably occurred that day which would precipitate such a cover-up is if there were some national security element beyond the Pentagon itself that this dealt with. Like what? Like, maybe, one of our own pilots flying into he Pentagon or launching a missile or a host of other things that any nation would want to keep quiet because of the frantic investigation into how a defense asset could be turned against it's own nation.

Maybe I misspoke at the outset. I guess I have a pet theory which goes something like "Something very powerful appears to have slammed into the Pentagon but the official explanation does not jive with a) what I would expect in a similar situation and b) does not have characteristics of hundreds of similar events."

Then again, ask an architecht how many times they've seen a building (not just a building, btw, a "trade center" designed to withstand an enormous amount of weight, structurally) pancake down entirely from fire.

[JHB]

17. Why do you assume the wings would be sheared off...

...instead of simply smashed into aluminum confetti (much like we see scattered about)?

[Elginoid]

19. the aluminum wings are where the fuel is, and the pentagon is VERY solid

and if you look at the wideshots of the damage to the building, at ground level, the damage is definitely at least as wide as the wingspan of a 757.

toss a coke can full of gasoline onto a campfire, and see how much of the can is left when the flames go out.

[DulceDecorum]

26. Concrete is NOT very solid

Concrete is clay.
Sure it looks like stone and many think that cement is actually stone dust, but they are WRONG.

Portland cement is clay. Mud. And it cannot stand up for long on its own. That is why they need to reinforce it with steel. All concrete cracks and detiorates. That is why old concrete buildings are very rare.

In the case of the Pentagon, they skimped on the steel. They brag about how they economised so much as to save an entire battle ship's worth of steel. So the Pentagon is made of Potomac sand and dried up mud heavily applied over a few bits and pieces of metal.

The rebuilt section will be even stronger. Instead of the original brick outer walls, the new perimeter will be reinforced concrete. So will stairwells, which had been sheathed in flimsier plaster.
But some things will remain the same as when the Pentagon was built 60 years ago during World War II. The outside facing will be clad in limestone from the same Indiana quarry used in the original construction. Exterior ring walls will be made of concrete molded to look like bricks, matching the original design.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/03/11/usat-pentagon.htm

Water causes concrete to disintegrate. Acid rain is even worse. So most concrete structures in the US are crumbling.
This is a MAJOR problem. In New York, the Attoney General Eliot Spitzer is sueing mid-western electricty producing plants for their coal-burning emissions which are causing acid rain to fall in New York City and this acid rain is DESTROYING ALL the buildings.

The Pentagon was not built to the same high standards as the WTC. The Penta-wall where the plane entered was destroyed by a mere wrecking ball AFTER September 11.
How is it that a wrecking ball could cause more damage than an entire Boeing 757 travelling at high speed?

By combining object and shadow information, analysts determined that a large construction crane was erected only 20 meters from the Boeing 757’s point of impact. The crane is estimated to be 124 meters long, 58 meters high and have a reach of 95 meters. It’s interesting that the crane’s working radius includes most of the fenced-in area. Swinging to the east and north, the crane will be able to serve nearly all of the demolished area, except for the extreme northeast corner. The demolished area contains what appears to be a big truck with heavy load capacity and two or three large excavators. Also, several other smaller not easily identifiable units and objects partly hidden in building shadows are visible.
http://www.imagingnotes.com/marapr02/skorve.htm

[MercutioATC]

35. That has to be the WORST argument I've seen here yet.

So the Pentagon was just a clay hut? What complete tripe.

Just read the damn ASCE report. It details the construction of the Pentagon. Look at any of the other sites I've posted to you that describe the construction methods used over he past few years to further reinforce the Pentagon (remember, AAL77 hit the Pentagon on the newly-updated reinforced section).

The Pentagon is one hard target...MUCH harder than the WTC towers. To suggest that the WTC towers were more resistant to a crash than the Pentagon was ("The Pentagon was not built to the same high standards as the WTC.") is a misrepresentation, at best.

I think most people can see through this "clay hut" silliness. It WAS en entertaining read, though...

[demodewd]

38. WTC

Don't forget that the WTC would have sliced up the fuselage with its cement floors,trusses and spandrels. Lets not misrepresent this like you have in the past.

[MercutioATC]

40. Are you claiming that the WTC towers were more crashproof than the

Pentagon?

That's the issue I'm responding to here. Spandrels and trusses aside, the towers were office buildings, not hardened military targets.

You disagree?

[BeFree]

42. Hardened military target

Lets see. The planes that hit the WTC ended up inside. Right?

Of course since the walls were so thin the plane should have gone right through the buildings, right?

But, we all know they did not go through. They were stopped.

Now we have the hardened penta walls. They were reinforced and blah, blah, blah. Seems those walls would have stopped the flying coke can as they were designed to do. But they didn't. Why not? Bad design?

Yet, the flying coke can, according to some, "Turned into confetti", and they also say, penetrated the hardened walls. What is it? Did it turn into confetti or did it smash through the walls? Make up your friggin minds, already.

Any further comparison of the two structures is null and void, as the main bearing of the WTC was vertical and the pentagon is lateral.

[RH]

46. Both.

With sufficient kinetic energy a disintegrated object or a liquid would just as well smash through a wall.

[BeFree]

52. Sufficient kinetic energy

So, after hitting some light poles and merely toppling them without busting those poles all to hell, but merely laying them down as if a car had hit them, the very same "flying coke can" smashed the hardened military target's massive concrete walls and blew open a hole big enough you could fly a missile into? Can I quote you on that?

-----------

Lets see:

A "Flying coke can" with
"sufficient kinetic energy"
"Turned into confetti" while simultaneously
blowing a hole clear through a hardened military structure.

Yeah, right.

[RH]

57. Poles were busted.

Where do you get that sort of irritatingly ignorant garbage from?

Poles were sheared in two.

How else do you explain this sort of damage?






:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

53. What don't you understand about the Pentagon and WTC crashes?

The planes that hit the WTC towers DID make it out the other sides (at least in part).

The Pentagon's reinforced walls and columns weren't breached by confetti, they were breached by the IMPACT of nearly 200,000 pounds of aluminum, glass and steel. That impact caused the relatively insubstantial structure of the plane to turn into very small pieces. Those pieces, mixed with tons of jet fuel then flew through the interior of the building, damaging or destroying reinforced concrete columns.

Just read the ASCE report. It explains the scenario nicely.

[BeFree]

55. Hooboy... a new theory!

...very small pieces... mixed with... jet fuel...then flew through the interior..."

Lets see, the "flying coke can" dissolved into "tiny pieces" "mixed" with liquid fuel and flew through the building after losing most of it kinetic energy hitting the hardened military target.

Yeah, right. That's some theory, eh?

[RH]

58. No. .... Not at all "new". ... an argument already done to death

more than two years ago.

[MercutioATC]

60. It's not a new theory and it's not mine.

It's the conclusion made by civil engineers who actually examined the Pentagon firsthand.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Any other questions?

[BeFree]

61. Really?

The ASCE actually theorizes that the plane hit the building, fractured into confetti then in an amazing penta-wall chemical reaction, combined with the unburned fuel and focused it's energy and set off once again at the wall creating a somewhat circular hole in the exterior and forced it's way through and smashed the supporting columns?

Well now, if you can get that quote from them, that'd be something.

No, it is actually a new theory, and it is yours, and the rest of ya'll b**sh believers. It seems ya'll will say just about anything these days, even something as ridiculous as your above theory. Have you no shame?

[RH]

63. Really.

".. the BPS team concluded that the impact of the aircraft destroyed or significantly impaired approximately 50 structural columns."

This was all thrashed out endlessly in a dozen or more "Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here" threads.

Here is one from September 2002, as good a place as any to start to catch up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5067&forum=DCForumID43

[BeFree]

65. From the ASCE link

I just read the linked ASCE report... they do claim what you say...Quote:

The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a fluid consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments. The first-story columns in the path of this rushing fluid mass must have lost their shells immediately upon impact. End quote

But reading further: Quote:

There is no question that the progress of the impacting fluid in the structure must have verged on the chaotic. The reasoning in the preceding paragraphs is not presented as a prediction of an orderly process but as a preliminary rationalization of the distribution of severe damage ....

"Preliminary Rationalization" Not a conclusion; just a preliminary rationalization. Really, you'd think by now that three years later, ya'll could come up with something better than a "Preliminary Rationalization"

Also, throughout the ASCE report you linked, it is stated numerous times that full access and full studies could not be completed, so one could conjecture that such studies never were and never will be conducted. And you want everyone to just say "Good enough"?

Not good enough for me, and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone, especially the ASCE. Have they no shame?

Of course, the ASCE members do an awful lot of work for the gummint, they wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds them, now would they?

[RH]

67. Look at the dates.

The preliminary rationalisation was not written three years later.

[BeFree]

69. The date was April 2002

What I want to see is the facts. Not a preliminary rationalization from several years back.

C'mon debunkers, get with it. It's been three years... there are no conclusive photos, just a rehash of the hash fed America after 9/11.

Ya'll should have come up with something else by now. We keep coming up with new stuff all the time, can't ya'll keep up?

[RH]

70. "new stuff all the time"?

Like what for instance?

:shrug:

[BeFree]

71. New stuff

Read some of the last 200 hundred threads. It's all there.

(Oh wait, that's your line, eh?)

Read 'em again, for the first time.

[RH]

72. I did.

Over and over again I saw tiresome regurgitations of old issues.

That's why I put the question.

Did you read all the archived threads from 2002?

What is there to see in the last 200 that was not seen before?

[MercutioATC]

73. Woluld you please READ the report before you comment?

"The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building."


"The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a “fluid” consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments."

Those are direct quotes from the ASCE report. They're not my opinions, they're the opinions of professional civil engineers specializing in reinforced concrete structures who physically examined the damage.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Notice that you're the only one talking about bizarre things like chemical reactions. The damage to the exterior wall was caused by the impact of a large plane. This crash both breached the wall and broke the plane into small pieces. The inertia of the crash carried these pieces and a substantial portion of the fuel aboard the plane into the breach. The interior damage was caused by the physical force of a large volume of jet fuel and aircraft debris (and Pentagon debris) moving at high speed.

This is a difficult concept?

[demodewd]

54. obvious facts

You stated before that you saw no reason why the plane wouldn't be able to enter the WTC building and exit with the fuselage basically intact. This is not physically possible. It's impossible for us to realistically measure the resistance levels of the two separate buildings. But to intimate that the plane that hit the WTC2 would have an realively easy go of it doesn't measure up to the obvious facts.

[AZCat]

56. This is not quite true

In your post you stated that, "It's impossible for us to realistically measure the resistance levels of the two separate buildings."

That depends on what you call "realistic". The most accurate way (and I agree with you - unrealistic) would be to build a number of replicas of both buildings and crash jets into all of the replicas, while collecting data from the impacts. But thanks to a boom in computing technology over the last thirty years, we can get an idea of a buildings "resistance levels" by simulating those impacts on a computer.

There are all sorts of caveats necessary when designing a simulation, especially when dealing with as complex of a problem as either the WTC or the Pentagon regarding impacts, but it can at least allow a comparison between the two structures. This is one of the methods used to test buildings for weather or earthquake survival.

I don't think there is (considering the tools available) either the resolution or the accuracy necessary to determine whether or not the collision was caused by a Boeing 767.

[RH]

39. Instead of concrete and limestone they should have used

tin foil, with good coat of MIL-P-23377 primer.

It would then have been completely impenetrable, right?

:toast:

[tngledwebb]

50. Your CT is harder to swallow than a half loaded Boeing

But if your Officially Approved Conspiracy Theory floats your boat then wear YOUR tin foil hat with pride. And keep searching the skies for C130's and falling lampoles. You'll catch on....

[RH]

51. Since you began to heckle

you've come up with absolutely nothing that I'd not seen before.

So how then do you think that this catching on would happen?

[Wolfetone]

21. I honestly find it really sad that people don't believe that a

747 hit the Pentagon.

Let's get to your main points.

"the wings would have been sheared off instantly"

Did you expect to see a couple of wings lying on the ground? The plane hit the a reinforced building at around 400 mph which would cause the wings to buckle be crushed in an instant. Then they would have been immediately engulfed in flame caused by the jet fuel which is packed inside of them, which in turn would have turned the shiny metal black, making it very hard to see in those crappy photographs the conspironuts use to taut their crazy, ignorant and/or addle minded theories.

"They should be right outside the building along with the top of the tail. "

Do you think the wings and tail are made out of Titanium? The top of the tail would have folded like aluminum foil in a childs hand or would have gone straight into the building if the hole caused by the initial impact was larger than the tail section.

"Where are those wings?"

The wings are in peices and in crumpled up balls. We are not talking about a plane that went belly down across a field were are talking about one that hit a reinforced concrete building.

"Where are those enormous engines? "

Now that is a very good question. The engines have much greater structural integrity than the wings of the plane. And according to reports and pictures at least one of the engines slammed through the first ring and into the second ring.

For more informationl you can follow any of these links, which do a much better job of tearing apart this crazy unsubstantiated theory.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking.html

[BeFree]

44. Those amazing penta walls

Yeah boy. Hardened beyond belief. Yet a "flying coke can" blew a hole right through the damned thing!

It really would be nice if ya'll believers of the boosh administration could come up with better explanations for your unfounded beliefs.

I find it really sad that so many of ya'll still cling to boosh's explanation without even considering the physical impossibilities of his story.

[impe]

29. You're Onto It.....

no commercial plane hit the pentagon, most likely a fighter jet hit or lauched missle. If you look
at the gov. approved clips from the "parking" area (no less), you can see an outline of the uplifted
nose of the fighter jet as well as the plume of white smoke that follows sonic booms. Remember "eye wittnesses"
said they heard a sonic boom. A commercial jet going at that speed would NOT create a boom.

I believe the fighter was escorting the plane back (remember the grounding of all air traffic)and made a loop after the plane landed at Reagan. So yes, people saw a plane but no that wasn't what hit the pentagon.

[demodewd]

33. omitting?

I think you are omitting the possibility that a commercial airliner(remote replacement)) hit the Pentagon but simultaneously was exploded by shaped charges either strapped to the craft or located and wired to the facade wall. This would explain the bright flash and accompaning sound wave. This would explain the rain of confetti. The monstous inferno at the very front of the building. The smell of cordite.The nine foot high hole into the A-E drive.

[impe]

49. You're Right...

though, I still have problems with the video's being confiscated by the FBI if these wing-nuts orchestrated it.
Seems like they would have played it (and replayed it for all its worth). No one has explained why the FBI
had jurisdiction over the military as far as "investigations". Nothing that happened there makes sense.

I'm sure the heliport tower had excellent shots of what hit as well...

[Fuzzy LaRue]

12. There are parts on the pictures on that site...

that are identifiable as being from a 757. The 757 wheel assembly is visible, the rack for the INU, ect. A 757 is basically a Coke can with some aluminum bracing. It does not stand a chance against a reinforced bomb resistant building.

[BeFree]

41. "Didn't stand a chance"

Ya know, I will have to agree. A "Flying coke can" such as a 757, never stood a chance at busting through numerous concrete columns, floors and walls. Not a chance. It should have plastered itself flat against the wall, causing just minor damage to the highly reinforced penta wall.

So.... whatever did hit the wall, stood a chance. In fact, with the advantage it had it did indeed penetrate all the aforementioned reinforced and bomb-hardened structural elements that made up the inpenetrable pentagon.

So, what was it that penetrated the hardened structure? Surely it was no "Flying coke can". Surely no such air filled tin-can would have ended up through all those walls, right?

[RH]

59. At sufficient speed, with enough energy

the air inside the coke can would blast through a wall, let alone the aviation fuel.

How else did you think that regular explosives work?

[BeFree]

62. Yes

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

But the penta-walls were not ordinary walls. They were a hardened military target, designed to deflect ordinary "flying coke cans". Yes?

Or are you saying the penta walls were just an illusion? That they were not the strongest walls ever built, that we were just told they were to somehow impress us?

Ya know, ya'll are vacillating, flip-flopping, magic introducing, fantasy world, water carriers for the b**sh explanations.

And you will fall over. Just like your leader.

[RH]

64. So are you trying to tell me

that the hole was too big, while the other gang are trying to tell me that the hole was too small?

Fight it out with them, or with those better qualified to know.

In the real World no person who was there at the Pentagon to see for themselves has since been known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the building. Not one of them.

[BeFree]

66. So

B**sh still has no doubt that invading Iraq was right.

People believe what they want. Even you still believe. Fine, go ahead, meanwhile the rest of us will continue to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion on our own.

We just wish ALL the evidence would be made available to us so our questions can be answered, and you seem to say "It's Enough for me".

Is it any wonder why we don't listen to you?

[RH]

68. An abundance of evidence is available.

Ask anybody who was there.

... and no, if you are not willing to respect them, the eye witnesses and appointed investigators then it is of course no wonder if you are not going to listen to anybody else.

[Jacobin]

13. Shouldn't this post be on the cartoon network?

jeeze

[frylock]

23. the best way to debunk this would be to release the surveillance video..

taken at the filling station across from the Pentagon; the one that was seized immediately after the strike. Why don't they release that video? We've seen video of the strikes at WTC from several different angles, but they won't allow anyone to view this footage. Anyone care to venture a guess as to why?

[RH]

24. Maybe

there is nothing to be seen of any particular interest. Strangely enough, gas station security cameras are not usually aimed towards the sky, just in case an airliner happens to pass by at 500 mph.

The Fourth Amendment also comes into play. Video tapes are private property.

This was all thrashed out before, on the many previous threads.

[frylock]

27. it was seized by the fbi..

if videos are indeed private property as you state, then why was this video seized by the feds? The camera angle was not "aimed towards the sky" as you suggest. I would imagine that it was aimed toward the pumps. The Pentagon happens to lie in the line of sight.


The NEXCOMM/CITGO gas station is just under the flightpath of the aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack.

Videos Outside the Pentagon Seized

Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, may provide decisive evidence about the attack.

The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack.

The FBI visited a gas station across from the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

I'm also guessing that there are numerous security cameras on the grounds of the Pentagon, cameras aside from the obstructed angle from the guard shack, that captured the strike. Lets have a look at those. If there is nothing to be seen of any particular interest, then what would be the harm of releasing the footage. That's all I'm asking.

[RH]

36. The FBI is an investigative agency.

Strangely enough they are paid to gather evidence. That's their job.

A google for "seizure of evidence" comes up with lots of engaging legal stuff.

The idea of a security camera at the Sharaton that just happened to point at the sky is yet more odd than one at the Citgo Gas Station. I've also seen it said that the camera was on the roof.

:crazy:

I've never heard it though, directly from anybody who actually worked at the Sheraton.

[frylock]

43. you're beating the living hell out of those straw men..

I didn't realize that we needed to speak directly with witnesses in order to conduct our research. I'm simply relying on news accounts to gather my info. Are you in a position to conduct such interviews? Since it appears you believe the official tale of 911, am I to assume that you have spoken directly with people who have knowledge that UBL was the mastermind? Perhaps you have heard it directly from the man himself.

I don't where you're pulling this camera pointing at the sky krap, but last I checked, the Pentagon was planted firmly on the ground. As stated in my last post, the Pentagon happened to lie in the LINE OF SIGHT. But thanks for playing.

[RH]

48. The witnesses are real.

They were not on another Planet. It is perfectly possible to communicate with them, the same as with anybody else. I got a prompt email reply for instance from Don Perkal, one of the witnesses deliberately named in the "In Plane Shite" propaganda.

One of the key witnesses, Steve Riskus, on his own initiative volunteered to put my first compendium of witness accounts on his web site. The original version is still there to be seen. He also supplied, pro bono, a lot of the photos since seen reproduced infinitum on the Internet.

I discovered an abundance of verifiable contact details for other witnesses but there was never enough time to contact them all in person simply because it had already begun to be a full time job just to keep track of the news reports of eye witnesses that continually turned up because there were so very many of them. Hundreds of people, literally, saw the B757 as it flew in over Columbia Pike.


The impertinent UBL red herring does not presently interest me.

Where does this line of sight B.S. come from?

The only original verison that I ever found said nothing more than that the camera was "close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact" which would not necessarily infer anything more than that the camera shook, thus to record the time of the impact.

As a matter of fact the Citgo Gas Station did not enjoy a direct view of the actual point of impact. The Washington Boulevard overpass is in the way.

[Endangered Specie]

30. What is this the 38th time this has been posted?

[RH]

37. I lost count.

:eyes:

[Endangered Specie]

47. Im tempted to post the ASCE reports

and various others (NIST) about 30 more times, spread over a medium time span. Maybe occasionally in the GD.

[WoodrowFan]

32. it loads a little slow

how appropriate, it only fools folks who are a little slow too.

really, this crap has been debunked over and over and over again.

[MercutioATC]

34. AGAIN?!?!?!?!?!!?! Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Jesus, just look at the dozen or so posts here debunking this slick piece of trash.

Trust me, we've "checked it out".

[geek tragedy]

45. Can we seriously have an official thread for this video?

Better one big pile of misinformation and ignorance than a thousand little ones.