VeeshanVault

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

Couldnt find this posted anywhere else, if it was forgive me, quite an interesting video for those who havent seen it. I'm not overly gullable but I think the video is true

9/11 could be the Kennedy assassination of our era. It's highly unlikely that if there is any conspiracy about it, that anyone will ever know beyond speculation.. of which, there is plenty.

Sounds far more like a cover-up than a classical conspiracy..

Perhaps one of the scrambled fighters had a malfunction and plowed into the Pentagon?

Hmm it will be interesting when and if the film from the hotel, gas station and traffic cameras gets released. Anyone know how long the government can keep documents classified? I hadn't ever payed much attention to the Pentagon part of 9/11 anyone know if the 9/11 commission report has anything on it? Guess I'll have to go google.

I listened to a late night talk show a few weeks ago and a possible 911 conspiracy was the topic. The guy had some very compelling data pointing to inconsistencies in what happened that day.

The Pentagon damage is very odd along with no parts of the plane found at all.

Another interesting point was the second plain having an obvious bulge the belly of the craft and a flash that occured right before impact. Along with that are witnesses and the film footage suggesting that the first plane hitting the WTCs had no windows.

The guy didn't seem like a kook and it certainly seems like it warranted further investigation.

This is a link with some short videos of a few questionable things from 911 but I'm sure there's other sites as well:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I think of all the sketchy info from 911, the Pentagon damage and lack of wreckage is the most questionable. There definately were 4 lost flights so if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon it had to go somewhere which would be baffling as well.

No plane wreckage.. no plane... it's as simple as that.

It was the aliens that took the oppurtunity and freed their captive fellow inside Pentagon!

I had this discussion on a different board not long ago and indeed, the Pentagon hit is strange. From what I know of planes, the wings and quite possibly the tail fin should have been found outside of the Pentago. Nothing of it was seen. The hole itself is also kind of strange.

The only reason why I can see that they are holding back footage is that they used some hi-tech defense system on it that they don't want seen. And before I get accused of being a typical liberal consipracy theorist.. I don't really believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, but my curiosity is peaked about the Pentagon hit.,

Heh well if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon...then we have a missing plane looong overdue...

Yeah the evidence related to the pentagon is weird and equivocal and clearly there are some missing records and a desire to mask some specifics there...

Saying that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon is easy...Explaining what then became of that 757 if it didn't hit the pentagon is not...

Weee this is always fun!
What about the fact that in no model that has been done since has the steel far below the impact site melted enough to cause the whole tower to fall, to be honest lots of the rest of it makes me laugh but that one makes me pause. The way the tower was constructed + where it was hit = one tower with a fucked up top

Kelshara wrote:I had this discussion on a different board not long ago and indeed, the Pentagon hit is strange. From what I know of planes, the wings and quite possibly the tail fin should have been found outside of the Pentago. Nothing of it was seen. The hole itself is also kind of strange.

The only reason why I can see that they are holding back footage is that they used some hi-tech defense system on it that they don't want seen. And before I get accused of being a typical liberal consipracy theorist.. I don't really believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, but my curiosity is peaked about the Pentagon hit.,

But what you thinking you know comes from seeing pictures of other crashes, and mostly ones in relatively open flat terrain, where a plane hits at a modest angle, breaks up into a few large pieces, then tumbles along the ground, breaking up into smaller pieces. Since the forces involved in each successive bounce for a piece are smaller and smaller due to lower speed, lighter weight of the piece due to being smaller than the bounce before, and the distance between the impact point and the center of mass of the piece being smaller each time, you wind up with some of the stronger chunks of the plane still being semi intact and recogniseable afterwards.

That does not usually apply if the plane strikes the ground at more than a certain angle. Beyond a certain angle there's too much energy to absorb from the impact before anything can bounce and roll, so the plane tends to crush on top of itself, rather than break up and roll, resulting in little recogniseable debris. In places where a plane hits vertically to the impact surface it tends to just make a small, neat hole as each section of the plane just crushes onto the section before it, like a stack of beer cans. And a plane may look large, but if you look at one head-on its quite small. You've seen pictures of the crash site of the flight that went down in one of the (florida?) swamps. It hit vertically, and there's barely a hole in the swamp, and nothing above the shallow water level.

And thats on relatively hard and unyielding surfaces. If a plane flies into a relatively soft and yielding surface like a building the plane will start crushing itself as it hits, but it will also crush a hole into the building and what you wind up with is a plane crushed onto itself inside the end of a hole, with nothing poking out of the end of the hole. Sorta like the wtc and pentagon...

Its easy enough to demonstrate to yourself if you like- go build yourself a good-sized lego plane say 2+ feet long, and try crashing it in different ways, see what happens. And for the finale lawn-dart it into a scaled lego building from the roof of your house/fire escape/balcony, tell me if it splatted into pieces off the outside of the lego building leaving lego all over the yard or you wound up with a neat hole and a pile of smashed lego inside the building.

If you dont have any lego or at least access to lego then you are, of course, a heretic and must die.

*Hugs*
Varia

I get all of that. The reason I talked about the wings and the tail is that they should be shredded off as it hit the building. They would not just fold neatly back and follow the plane in, nor would they ompletely disintegrate upon impact. Also, if I recall correctly the plane supposedly touched down on the ground once before it "bounced" into the Pentagon. That might be wrong though, too tired to research it atm.

Back in the 80s I believe it was a Norwegian plane hit a mountain. It was a smaller plane going a bit slower (2-engine turboprop passenger plane, carries about 80 passengers) but it left quite a bit of well-sized debris. I simply don't buy the official comment that the plane went through all of those layers of reinforced concrete and then simply disintegrated completely.

Edit: Ah here we go, from the Snopes link:

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building

A plane bouncing off the ground will normally have some damage done to it. Which would mean debris. That, and the long, very narrow damage is kind of strange.

Another interesting thing is how the pilots of these planes were called horrible pilots at their flight schools. To the point where they were claimed to basically be unable to fly. Now, take-off and landing are the two most difficult parts of flying, so they would not have to do that. However, flying a 757 at 350 MPH barely above ground level is not easy. It is way harder than hitting WTC was.

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

That is the worst snopes response ever. Zero convincing proof discounting the questions being raised.

There have been several identified cameras that would have filmed the plane which haven't been released. It's extremely easy to put this to rest by releasing those confiscated videos.

Kelshara wrote:I get all of that. The reason I talked about the wings and the tail is that they should be shredded off as it hit the building. They would not just fold neatly back and follow the plane in, nor would they ompletely disintegrate upon impact. Also, if I recall correctly the plane supposedly touched down on the ground once before it "bounced" into the Pentagon. That might be wrong though, too tired to research it atm.

Back in the 80s I believe it was a Norwegian plane hit a mountain. It was a smaller plane going a bit slower (2-engine turboprop passenger plane, carries about 80 passengers) but it left quite a bit of well-sized debris. I simply don't buy the official comment that the plane went through all of those layers of reinforced concrete and then simply disintegrated completely.

It didn't...it disintegrated gradually as it penetrated...

Look at some of the high velocity particle tests intended to simulate meteorites...the final layers penetrated are penetrated by collections of much smaller particles...the resultant fragments are very small and in the case of an airplane would be entirely unrecognizable as airplane wreckage...or i suppose it's more accurate to say very difficult to differentiate from any other piece without very close examination

Winnow wrote:

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

That is the worst snopes response ever. Zero convincing proof discounting the questions being raised.

There have been several identified cameras that would have filmed the plane which haven't been released. It's extremely easy to put this to rest by releasing those confiscated videos.

I'm with Winnow on this one. I read that and it did nothing to make me think, "Oh, ok.." There are pictures of the lawn area where the crash was, there's no huge trench in the ground where a plane going 300-400 mph or whatever it was, hit before hitting the building. And if you look at the layers of the pentagon building past #1, they aren't damaged all that badly from what the pictures show. Blackened yes, destroyed no.

Siji wrote:

Winnow wrote:

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

That is the worst snopes response ever. Zero convincing proof discounting the questions being raised.

There have been several identified cameras that would have filmed the plane which haven't been released. It's extremely easy to put this to rest by releasing those confiscated videos.

I'm with Winnow on this one. I read that and it did nothing to make me think, "Oh, ok.." There are pictures of the lawn area where the crash was, there's no huge trench in the ground where a plane going 300-400 mph or whatever it was, hit before hitting the building. And if you look at the layers of the pentagon building past #1, they aren't damaged all that badly from what the pictures show. Blackened yes, destroyed no.

Errrm if you release all those pentagon security camera films...It becomes an easy matter to determine where those cameras are located and substantially easier to avoid and or disable them...You won't see 'em...

Supposedly it bounced on the heli pad so there wouldn't be a huge ditch in the lawn.. however, bouncing on concrete creates debris!

And.. I can understand the main body more or less disintegrating inside the building.. What I don't get is the complete lack of debris outside. Wings.. tail.. engines.. engines are solid as hell.

Let's not forget the $20 bill conspiracy warning too!

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

I looked at this last month, it is a great conspiracy theory, just like when you watch the stuff the whackos put together saying we did not go to the moon.

But it is all so easily refutable when you take a balanced look at it, that it is silly.

You'd have to be a major league idiot to believe this one.

Arborealus wrote:
Errrm if you release all those pentagon security camera films...It becomes an easy matter to determine where those cameras are located and substantially easier to avoid and or disable them...You won't see 'em...

They weren't even talking about the pentagon security cameras. There was a camera on the roof of a hotel and one in a gas station and some highway traffic cameras that should have the plane on tape. Those would not reveal any secret pentagon camera locations but would easily put this to rest showing an actual airplane.

Here's another site with a bunch of pictures:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

I don't think anyone here agrees with the original site, I just find some of the events at Pentagon very strange.

Hrmm, in an interesting turn, one of the conspiracy sites linked above has a link to an opposing view. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... raight.htm

It's all kind of inconclusive, and I wish they would release some more tapes.. and the tapes most people are talking about are from civilian sources, not pentagon spy cameras that they need to keep secret.

Of course, as with all good conspiracy theories, and all good coverups, there's no proof that the tapes existed in the first place.