What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[ThomasPaine2008]

Hello everyone,

I was in the process of putting some material on my site that I had put on wikis before; and when I got to the page on the Pentagon attack, I decided to update it with a couple of snapshots from the videos released by Judaical Watch of the attack, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act:

 "Defense Department Releases Two Videos of Flight 77 Crashing Into Pentagon," at
http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.

I've seen a lot of pages which examine these videos closer, but all I did is examine one of these two videos, the one in which the "plane's" nose is visible for one frame, when it enters the shot.  I cropped the nose part of the image, and enlarged it.  That's it.  That's all I did.  Here's what I got:

Note that the silvery thing that looks like it might be a Boeing in the background is actually present in the preceding frame, and is some sort of sculpture in the background.  The thing that is colored with light and dark military green pointing down is the supposed nose of the 757.  This is not a 757.  It looks very much like a missile to me.

In the other video, the frame that supposedly shows a Boeing has a tail, and I show, on my page on the Pentagon, that what looks like the body and nose of the "plane" is present in the previous frame, as well.  As to whether there is a missile with a nose like this, a tail has been composited in the frame, or there is a plane with a nose like the object that looks like a missile in the above photo, I do not know, but it sure looks like a missile to me.  This is a huge surprise, to see this in a video which seems very securely to be from an official source, and for it to look like a missile.  I am sure that it is not a Boeing, an A3 Skywarrior, or a Global Hawk or other cruise missile; has has been often suggested by people proposing alternatives to a Boeing.  Can some military person out there, or other astute researcher help identify whatever this is?  It astounds me that nobody has ever done this simple and obvious examination of the video, but to judge by the discussion on this forum, it seems very probable that nobody has noticed this before.

You can find the rest of my discussion on the subject on the relevant page on my website: http://behindthecurtain.zzl.org/Pentacon.php.  All you guys who say a Boeing hit the Pentagon, and it was only Islamic terrorists behind the planning: "denial" isn't just a river in Egypt!

Sincerely,
ThomasPaine2008

[HEBGB]

Looking at the video that is linked in your website. It is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE that it was a jetliner. In the picture you can plainly see that the "skid mark" is already there. The craft would have already been on the ground in this picture WELL before impact and would have caused a HUGE scattered mess, not a 16 foot hole...

The image in the video also seems to be WAY too small.

That video has been doctored or is damning IMO...

[citizenx]

OK, I'll start the shitstorm.  I definitely believe it was not an aircraft at the Pentagon.  I am not tallking about WTC or Shanksville, which I have addressed on other threads, so it is public knowledge.

Pentagon was a cheat, a missile, maybe a "Tomahawk" or similar missile.  Have at.  Go ahead and attack me for be a "no planers"/Troll.

[Letsbereal]

Source: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v393/youricarma/NineOneOne/?albumview=slideshow

[HEBGB]

AWSOME LBR! These photos are the most damning evidence I have seen yet.

[ThomasPaine2008]

HEBGB wrote:

>Looking at the video that is linked in your website. It is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE that it was
>ja etliner. In the picture you can plainly see that the "skid mark" is already there. The craft would
>have already been on the ground in this picture WELL before impact and would have caused a
>HUGE scattered mess, not a 16 foot hole...

There are photos on the 'Net of the Pentagon a day or two before, and the "skid mark" is only a discolored strip of grass that had already long been there; curiously enough, people were saying, right in the line of the official flight path.  The object which flew into the Pentagon does not appear to have hit the ground at all.  Another thing I found curious about the official Pentagon video, is that there is a large puff of smoke already in the air, well in front of the object that hits the Pentagon.  What 757 leaves a puff of smoke in front of it, or what else was leaving one, before the object hit the Pentagon?  I think we have a better chance of finding out what kind of object that was, than what caused the puff of smoke, but it still does not fit well with the official 'legend'.  Another thing that argues against it being a jetliner, is that the engines would have been the densest things there, but in the inner ring, we see one hole presumably where the nose would have been, not two, where the engine shafts would have come put.  A missile would have been more likely to leave a single one in the center.  Even so, it might be argued that the hole might have been caused by a single engine.  On the other hand, it seems pretty unlikely to me that a jetliner with a sturdiness approximating a large-scale aluminum can, would punch through three rings of reinforced Pentagon offices.

citizenx wrote:

>The image in the video also seems to be WAY too small.

>That video has been doctored or is damning IMO...

If the image is too small, and doctored, is that not itself damning, or indicating Judicial Watch is doctoring video, which I seriously doubt?  Unless Judicial Watch doctored the video, if the image is too small, the video seems damning.  Although my enlargement is blurry, it does not look like a 757.  We need a more precise calculation, given the exact position of the post, calculating using the northern route, as given in the CIT video.  Then, we can see if the nose indeed should be protruding from behind the post, or even if the tail is nowhere near large enough.

>Pentagon was a cheat, a missile, maybe a "Tomahawk" or similar missile.

Here is a picture of a Tomahawk.  Note the tittie-shaped front end.  Does it look anything like the nose of the object in my blurry enlargement of the official Pentagon video?  It doesn't to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile

Letsbereal:
I've seen those pics on websites before.  Where is any indication that the scale is correct?  Note that the left wing of the big red plane will hit inside the area of destruction, and the red line from the left wing of the big Boeing will hit way beyond it.  You've got to prove your measurements, before such pics can be considered to have proven anything.  This seems to be what Gen. Stubblebine is talking about.  Either that, or he is just concluding that the boundaries of the damaged area should show wing marks, when they do not.  An anti-Truther has already done a 3D animation of the view from the cameras in the posts of the gate; although predictably without releasing his data, or the sources of his measurements.  If we can find the exact dimensions of the distance between pillars on the of the Pentagon, which pillars correspond to the photos, and the exact position of those posts, the problem can be solved with trigonometry alone; but without it, we are just guessing at the angles and distances.  There might be a decent diagram of the Pentagon with the cemetery wall, the posts of the auto gate, with exact distances, somewhere.  Didn't whoever made those pics offer his 3D model to the community?  Doesn't somebody else have one, so Truthers don't have to start from square one each time?  I circumvent these difficulties by showing a pic of something that is presumably real, although blurry.

More to the point: can anybody find a Boeing, missile, drone, or other plane with a nose that looks like my enlarged video snapshot?  I really think it's an important clue; even more-so than the wreckage found at the site.  I've been looking at a lot of photos of missiles, and so far, I haven't found anything that looks like it.  It looks like a dark-green tube of a missile, whose nose comes to a light-green cone, with a cylinder that juts forwards from the middle of that, with dark-green sides, and a rounded light-green nose in front of that.  Although it seems less likely, we may be looking at light and dark strips on a rounded cone on the front.  In either case, the body seems to have the shape of a simple cylinder, that extends off to the right of the screen.  If the U.S. government had doctored it, I don't think it would look so much like a missile.  In my mind, that argues for its authenticity.  They would have slipped up, and let a glimpse of the real object out.

Another angle, is that I saw someone who calculated the speed of the object, based on the movement of the car (which seems a pretty big variable), and concludes the object must be traveling at least mach 6!  I don't know if we have an official frame rate on that camera

[HEBGB]

HEBGB wrote:

>Looking at the video that is linked in your website. It is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE that it was
>ja etliner. In the picture you can plainly see that the "skid mark" is already there. The craft would
>have already been on the ground in this picture WELL before impact and would have caused a
>HUGE scattered mess, not a 16 foot hole...

There are photos on the 'Net of the Pentagon a day or two before, and the "skid mark" is only a discolored strip of grass that had already long been there; curiously enough, people were saying, right in the line of the official flight path.  The object which flew into the Pentagon does not appear to have hit the ground at all.  Another thing I found curious about the official Pentagon video, is that there is a large puff of smoke already in the air, well in front of the object that hits the Pentagon.  What 757 leaves a puff of smoke in front of it, or what else was leaving one, before the object hit the Pentagon?  I think we have a better chance of finding out what kind of object that was, than what caused the puff of smoke, but it still does not fit well with the official 'legend'.  Another thing that argues against it being a jetliner, is that the engines would have been the densest things there, but in the inner ring, we see one hole presumably where the nose would have been, not two, where the engine shafts would have come put.  A missile would have been more likely to leave a single one in the center.  Even so, it might be argued that the hole might have been caused by a single engine.  On the other hand, it seems pretty unlikely to me that a jetliner with a sturdiness approximating a large-scale aluminum can, would punch through three rings of reinforced Pentagon offices.

citizenx wrote:

>The image in the video also seems to be WAY too small.

>That video has been doctored or is damning IMO...

If the image is too small, and doctored, is that not itself damning, or indicating Judicial Watch is doctoring video, which I seriously doubt?  Unless Judicial Watch doctored the video, if the image is too small, the video seems damning.  Although my enlargement is blurry, it does not look like a 757.  We need a more precise calculation, given the exact position of the post, calculating using the northern route, as given in the CIT video.  Then, we can see if the nose indeed should be protruding from behind the post, or even if the tail is nowhere near large enough.

>Pentagon was a cheat, a missile, maybe a "Tomahawk" or similar missile.

Here is a picture of a Tomahawk.  Note the tittie-shaped front end.  Does it look anything like the nose of the object in my blurry enlargement of the official Pentagon video?  It doesn't to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile

Letsbereal:
I've seen those pics on websites before.  Where is any indication that the scale is correct?  Note that the left wing of the big red plane will hit inside the area of destruction, and the red line from the left wing of the big Boeing will hit way beyond it.  You've got to prove your measurements, before such pics can be considered to have proven anything.  This seems to be what Gen. Stubblebine is talking about.  Either that, or he is just concluding that the boundaries of the damaged area should show wing marks, when they do not.  An anti-Truther has already done a 3D animation of the view from the cameras in the posts of the gate; although predictably without releasing his data, or the sources of his measurements.  If we can find the exact dimensions of the distance between pillars on the of the Pentagon, which pillars correspond to the photos, and the exact position of those posts, the problem can be solved with trigonometry alone; but without it, we are just guessing at the angles and distances.  There might be a decent diagram of the Pentagon with the cemetery wall, the posts of the auto gate, with exact distances, somewhere.  Didn't whoever made those pics offer his 3D model to the community?  Doesn't somebody else have one, so Truthers don't have to start from square one each time?  I circumvent these difficulties by showing a pic of something that is presumably real, although blurry.

More to the point: can anybody find a Boeing, missile, drone, or other plane with a nose that looks like my enlarged video snapshot?  I really think it's an important clue; even more-so than the wreckage found at the site.  I've been looking at a lot of photos of missiles, and so far, I haven't found anything that looks like it.  It looks like a dark-green tube of a missile, whose nose comes to a light-green cone, with a cylinder that juts forwards from the middle of that, with dark-green sides, and a rounded light-green nose in front of that.  Although it seems less likely, we may be looking at light and dark strips on a rounded cone on the front.  In either case, the body seems to have the shape of a simple cylinder, that extends off to the right of the screen.  If the U.S. government had doctored it, I don't think it would look so much like a missile.  In my mind, that argues for its authenticity.  They would have slipped up, and let a glimpse of the real object out.

Another angle, is that I saw someone who calculated the speed of the object, based on the movement of the car (which seems a pretty big variable), and concludes the object must be traveling at least mach 6!  I don't know if we have an official frame rate on that camera

I was not suggesting that you did any of this. I am suggesting that the gov did.

[citizenx]

Your quote by me is taken from another source.  I never said that.

[citizenx]

Guys look closely at what I said and didn't say.

[citizenx]

Look, I will "red-line" this for you guys since nobody from the other side has reallys shown up yet (I think).  They will say the wings and tail fin folded in upon impact.  This is why the images above are not concrete proof. Whether that is correct or not, I cannot say.

The counterargument,however, is that the plane could not have flown that low at that angle, especially under the control of an unexperienced pilot (per the official conspiracy theory -- towelheads with boxcutters).

That's why over fifty different films which were confiscated by the FBI are still being kept under wraps from the publlic and the few frames available do not clearly show a plane, but instead something perhaps resembling the nosecone of a missile, which is undoubtedly what punched the hole in the Pentagon precisely where the accounting offices were that were examining the embezzlement of maybe billions of dollars diverted to black projects or private pockets or both.

Now, if you are going to quote me, quote me verbatim or not at all.  I'm beginning to suspect both of (HEBGB and Patriot) of being up to no good, even though ostensibly we would agree on this.

Please take more care in the future, or I will leave you to the troll-baiters who will certainly appear iminently.

Bottom line its the ballistics, and trajectory, of the plane as a whole, not the wings/tail fin etc.  That's terra firma in this argument.

[agentbluescreen]

In the other video, the frame that supposedly shows a Boeing has a tail, and I show, on my page on the Pentagon, that what looks like the body and nose of the "plane" is present in the previous frame, as well.  As to whether there is a missile with a nose like this, a tail has been composited in the frame, or there is a plane with a nose like the object that looks like a missile in the above photo, I do not know, but it sure looks like a missile to me.  This is a huge surprise, to see this in a video which seems very securely to be from an official source, and for it to look like a missile.  I am sure that it is not a Boeing, an A3 Skywarrior, or a Global Hawk or other cruise missile; has has been often suggested by people proposing alternatives to a Boeing.  Can some military person out there, or other astute researcher help identify whatever this is?  It astounds me that nobody has ever done this simple and obvious examination of the video, but to judge by the discussion on this forum, it seems very probable that nobody has noticed this before.

You can find the rest of my discussion on the subject on the relevant page on my website: http://behindthecurtain.zzl.org/Pentacon.php.  All you guys who say a Boeing hit the Pentagon, and it was only Islamic terrorists behind the planning: "denial" isn't just a river in Egypt!

What on earth, after you coming to such an obvious conclusion, would make you change your mind? In fact a cruise missile (fired at such ground hugging trajectory) launching itself from a descending (or just landed) ultra light prototype "JPAD-dropped" guided cargo platform (then just developed) seems to be precisely the method used!

Your page also points out this intriguing photo of some covered lightweight hardware that obviously must have fallen far short of the target (certainly couldn't have been "something secret" out on the lawn this far away from the crash site previously either) as it is being hurriedly carted away after being quickly concealed from observation, by senior non-uniformed intel personnel, something like a lightweight rectangular aluminum cargo platform, that is totally inconsistent with any "rescue" or the expected shape nor form of any sort of jagged "airliner wreckage". The bottom pallet framework (welded aluminum) appears to be visible.

This video has a number of very interesting tidbits in it; apart from it's more earthshaking revelations. There is a park sheriff, I believe it was, who said two people came to him, and said the plane flew over the Pentagon. Do you suppose Congress or a representatives of a grand jury have ever come, asking who those people are? No. Also, I believe they mention someone who saw a plane fire a missile into the Pentagon, and fly over. Then, there were two people they find who were on the other side of the Pentagon, who saw a plane fly over immediately after the explosion. However, the witnesses are unanimous in saying only one plane was in the area, flying toward the Pentagon, just before the explosion.

Finally, I had always wanted to know what they were carrying away from the Pentagon on 9/11 in this photo:

There is only one solution that fits all the facts, (in fact you can see the parachute under the tarp too) it was repainted C-130 that flew over the Pentagon, which while superficially looking like an airliner, could only have "dropped a missile" using one of these:

Bagram C-130s Drop High-Tech Cargo Delivery System
AIR FORCE NEWS — BY EDITOR ON   SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 AT 3:41 AM
 (No Ratings Yet)
 
US Air Force, BAGRAM AIR BASE: The same global positioning technology that helps fighter and bomber pilots deliver smart bombs with pinpoint accuracy now allows cargo bundles dropped from cargo planes to steer themselves to drop zones.  
 
A C-130 Hercules from the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron here dropped supplies to a U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan Aug. 31, using the military's newest airdrop system for the first time in a combat zone.  
 
An Air National Guard crew, deployed from Alaska's 144th Airlift Squadron, dropped bundles using the Joint Precision Airdrop System, or JPADS, which the Army and Air Force have been developing together since 1993.  
 
"This was the first Air Force employment of the joint precision airdrop system in an operational or combat airlift mission," said Maj. Neil Richardson, chief of the combat programs and policy branch at Air Mobility Command. He deployed here as part of the JPADS Mobile Training Team to oversee the first combat use of the system and to train C-130 crews how to use it.  
 
"The system did exactly what it was designed for and delivered ammunition and water to ground troops here in Afghanistan," he said.  
 
The JPADS is a family of systems designed to bring the same accuracy to the airlift community that strike pilots have enjoyed since the development of GPS-guided bombs, called joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMS.  
 
"It's the JDAMS of logistics," Major Richardson said. The goal, when the system is fully developed, is to field four sizes of JPADS - extra light, light, medium and heavy. Though still in the concept-development phase, the heavy JPADS may be able to airdrop up to 60,000 pounds of cargo, more than enough to deliver the Army's eight-wheel Stryker combat vehicle.  
 
"Soldiers in forward fighting positions will have a viable means of airdrop re-supply, which is more accurate and increases survivability of critical supplies, like ammunition, fuel, food and water," said Chief Warrant Officer Cortez Frazier, aerial delivery chief for Combined Joint Task Force-76's Joint Logistics Command.  
 
"JPADS will ensure the war fighter can continue to combat and win against terrorism," he said.  
 
The JPADS loads have GPS receivers which are updated, while traveling in the airplane, through a repeater in the cargo bay that re-broadcasts the aircraft's GPS coordinates to electronics fastened to the cargo.  
 
When dropped, the GPS receivers guide steering mechanisms

LOL

[agentbluescreen]

Senior non-uniformed = al DIAduh

[citizenx]

Still waiting for someone to jump in and call us all "no planer" trolls for saying the Pentagon was a missile.  Boy, this place has changed.  Good.

[agentbluescreen]

The earliest development of the JPAD System began in early 1997 and while still classified then was simply an adaptation of JDAM. Early prototypes were small scale systems that are little more than robotic airfoil controllers strapped to a pallet. The newer "combat-ready" ones are high speed, high altitude autonomous robotic parafoil guidance and control units suitable for steering and the precision landing of both much heavier and lighter cargo payloads in hostile conditions, while the earliest 1999 POC prototype units would have been more than adequate for small precision soft landing airdrops of even large payloads over short low altitude distances...

This unique solution completely explains the G force anomalies and trajectory incongruities that the flight recorder simulations and witness accounts cannot.

Photos of the JPADS pallets can be seen here:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA488396&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Note the higher aluminum cargo rails mounted atop a wooden or aluminum pallet.

2004 public announcements of these JPADS began after they were declassified in 2004
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/jpads.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1448063/US-Air-Force-25002-vol1-3-

But the original development of the PEGASYS (LATER JDAM/JPADS) original artificial intelligence control module "ACM" software program development began as early as 1986 and was fairly mature by the late 90's

http://www.csl.sri.com/papers/csl-88-7/csl-88-7r.pdf

Wright-Patterson was engaged in testing of these http://www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=10878  in 1999

Surely we are seeing a prime example of Just In Time delivery...

[ThomasPaine2008]

citizenx:

In my first reply, you will notice that "citizenx wrote" is in the block of quotation/response immediately above the statement you actually made, and the response.  So I post a damning photo, and get who asked the question and response wrong.  (I had gotten who said what wrong when I first typed my responses, and thought I had fixed them.  Apparently not.)  "up to no good," or a honest mistake?  Watch where you are pointing those accusations.

HEBGB:
>I was not suggesting that you did any of this. I am suggesting that the gov did.

I'm sorry.  I don't know where those pics are from.  If you want to test my memory, I would say I saw them first on a Truther site.  They seem to be showing, in most cases, that there should be wing marks in places where there are none.

agentbluescreen:
>What on earth, after you coming to such an obvious conclusion, would make you change your mind?
>In fact a cruise missile (fired at such ground hugging trajectory) launching itself from a descending
>(or just landed) ultra light prototype "JPAD-dropped" guided cargo platform (then just developed)
>seems to be precisely the method used!

The photo enlargement I posted, and pictures I've come across using cruise missiles.  I'm just trying to nail down an important aspect of it: what hit the Pentagon.  I don't think it was a cruise missile, simply because I haven't come across a picture of a cruise missile that looks like my enlargement, and being directly from Judicial Watch's website, and not being a thing the gov. would like to put in a pic, the official gov. Pentagon video, I think, is likely to be genuine.  Since my initial post, I've come across a number of different looking cruise missiles, and I think it is a possibility.  The real difficulty, is none of them I have come across yet, nor a Tomahawk, have a nose that looks like my photo enlargement.  The idea of a C-130 having fired it is plausible, but I don't see where you've demonstrated your case.  Other planes can fire missiles too.  The best descriptions of the plane that flew toward the Pentagon are in the CIT video, linked to on my webpage.  It might well correspond to a C-130 with a colored stripe around its middle.  I remember all eyewitnesses described a single plane, and most said it had a horizontal colored stripe, although the color in the descriptions varied.  I haven't done a detailed comparison of their eyewitness testimony with a C130.  Have you?  If a cruise missile were dropped from some distance away by some other plane that was less accurate at dropping munitions, using its GPS capabilities, couldn't it correct, and hit a pinpoint target?  Isn't it possible a completely different plane flew over, and a cruise or other type self-navigating craft was launched from a long ways away?  We've got to make our arguments a lot more conclusive, or admit where they aren't, if we expect to convince critics.


Happily, it doesn't appear that any of us yet in this thread are trying to interject patently false info, like shills would; or resorted to baseless name-calling, like a disinfo agent, or Hannity or O'Riely would.  Also, happily, the administrators here also haven't tried to stifle any of the discussion.  I hope somebody can produce a photo of a missile, drone, aircraft, or Boeing, that has a nose that looks like my photo enlargement.   I'm banking on the impression that Judicial Watch is a legit site, since they seem to dredge up a lot of muck under the FOI and through court cases, and while I haven't really looked for it, I haven't heard people saying they doctor the things they receive from their FOI requests.  If they did, you would think the government would say something about it: e.g. "The gov. wishes to announce or file suit to compel Judicial Watch from claiming doctored VOI materials are the real ones."  If these videos are what Judicial Watch was given from the government, I doubt seriously that the gov. would intentionally alter one of the vids to look so little like a Boeing.  I'm guessing my photo enlargement is of a genuine photo, and if so, an important piece of the puzzle can be worked out by figuring out just what sort of object has such a nose.  It is very distinctive.

Note: I've also seen a number of sites that show frames from these videos, and have Sept. 12 on them.  Since the Judicial Watch ones don't, I think these will be shill sites, or will be copying from them.

[ThomasPaine2008]

Now it is saying I already made this post, when I didn't.  Let's give it another try.

citizenx wrote:

>Look, I will "red-line" this for you guys since nobody from the other side has reallys shown up yet (I
>think).  They will say the wings and tail fin folded in upon impact.  This is why the images above are not
>concrete proof. Whether that is correct or not, I cannot say.

Again, the interview with Gen. Stubblebine linked to from my webpage sounded pretty convincing   He is saying that that just doesn't happen at those speeds.  There should be wing marks.  He says he is an expert in such examinations of plane crashes.  I think the idea is that, while wings could indeed follow the body in, the first thing that would happen is the wings should flatten out against the wall first, and he is saying, that should leave a mark.  Is it possible he is wrong?  Yes.  Is it likely?  I found him convincing enough that I think its pretty unlikely.  As to the posted images being concrete proof, again: Where do we have any reassurance that the size of the plane is right?

[agentbluescreen]

Well from the size of the JPADS Platform they appeared to be hustling away from the roadside (note the guard rails in the background) they were way over at the edge of the Pentagon lawn retrieving this thing. Likely they already had the JPADS (air drop package/chute) collected and tarped before EMS/Fire/Police arrived.

It's not inconceivable that a few pieces of breakaway airliner-type "wreckage" might have been attached to the missile housing so that it would shear off in the boost phase during such a short launch to target, after the package touched down. (thus leaving some convenient peel-away "wreckage" strewn-about, that looked sort of like the "plane" was disintegrating before it hit, laying around, it may have had a hardened cone too)

Note it appears to be a wooden pallet with the high JPADS welded aluminum cargo rails that house the chute and chute controller package that control the landing payload, with the chute pulled back over it and then covered with a ready-made tarp.

It's impossible to gauge the length of such a fast moving missile with a blurred long exposure image from a distant parking lot camera since it would be moving at such a high speed but the device that struck the building was certainly no airplane, and somebody would have certainly noticed a cruise missile slung under the plane in a conventional fighter/bomber launch configuration.

To me the critical factor that confirms a lawn-launched missile  is the virtual absence of any angle of descent. The missile was flying at about 2 feet of altitude.

A plane could not have leveled off for such a trajectory or it's huge underslung engines would be mowing and/or churning up the lawn, which is literally impossible. It'd have to have hit the third floor. (or come down at a steep angle)

It all fits - this is undoubtedly what really happened.

[PhoenixRising]

WTC crash pic - apparently no folded over wings here.

[citizenx]

And now they're here.  This is what I warned you about.  This is why it is importatnt to stress that it is largely irrelevant whether the wings folded in.  Re: above posts

[jimd3100]

Still waiting for someone to jump in and call us all "no planer" trolls for saying the Pentagon was a missile.  Boy, this place has changed.  Good.

It's 2010, you no planers are a waste of time and bandwidth. Almost 9 years and you still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. That's pretty embarrassing.

Since this happend in broad daylight in a heavily populated area, there are lots of witnesses. For every missile witness you present I will present 2 that say it was a plane.
I'll go first...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

Now show us 1 missile witness and I will post 2 more. If you can't then we're done.

Maybe you can convince somebody they were all fooled and confused this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM9YB5oNJYo

With a missile.  

[citizenx]

And now they're really here.

Look, it's a plane.  Don't blink or you'll miss the fuzzy blur in frame 14.

[agentbluescreen]

Well I dunno I can't read it in the pic but that piece of junk they're hustling away from the edge of the lawn seems to have:

"HAHA I'm a Tomahawk pallet with a drop-chute on me" written all over it.

[agentbluescreen]

I really don't know what you're on about jimd

The preliminary WTC "assaults" and the Pentagon air assault where obviously two completely different things.

There are no two ditches in the Pentagon lawn nor any wreckage nor holes in the building that indicate in any way, shape, nor form that any airliner type vehicle ever struck it, let alone neither at the altitude nor trajectory they would have us believe.

[TheQ]

It's 2010, you no planers are a waste of time and bandwidth. Almost 9 years and you still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. That's pretty embarrassing.

Since this happend in broad daylight in a heavily populated area, there are lots of witnesses. For every missile witness you present I will present 2 that say it was a plane.
I'll go first...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

Now show us 1 missile witness and I will post 2 more. If you can't then we're done.

Maybe you can convince somebody they were all fooled and confused this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM9YB5oNJYo

With a missile.  

NBC witnesses? ok sure....   And what's with the divisive "no-planer" label? No one is talking about hologram here, why do you care so much if one thinks it's a missile or perhaps a smaller plane?

[jimd3100]

Why do you no planers try finding a witness that said it was not a plane that hit, that should keep you busy for awhile....or better yet...find another hobby.

[TheQ]

Why do you no planers try finding a witness that said it was not a plane that hit, that should keep you busy for awhile....or better yet...find another hobby.

lol... isnt there a woman that appeared a few times on AJ show, working at the pentagon saying she saw no wreckage when she walked out.. just wondering...

And oh, what happened in Pennsylvania? The hole in the ground? Missile? No planer or planer?

[Kilika]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I say it is impossible that it was a commercial airliner like a 737 or whatever they claim it was. No way. My knowledge from working in air combat simulators for the US Navy tell me no way a pilot could have pulled off that manuver at high speed, definately with a large aircraft. I've personally flown both an F-4 and F-14 US Navy simulator because I use to operate and maintain them for the Navy. I could fly as well as many of those new jetjocks straight out of school and I was enlisted. Top Gun test pilots would come and calibrate the simulators to verify realism. Nope, sorry, no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

[_CREATIONIST_]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I say it is impossible that it was a commercial airliner like a 737 or whatever they claim it was. No way. My knowledge from working in air combat simulators for the US Navy tell me no way a pilot could have pulled off that manuver at high speed, definately with a large aircraft. I've personally flown both an F-4 and F-14 US Navy simulator because I use to operate and maintain them for the Navy. I could fly as well as many of those new jetjocks straight out of school and I was enlisted. Top Gun test pilots would come and calibrate the simulators to verify realism. Nope, sorry, no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

there is a really good documentry that backs up your knowledge that no plane hit the pentagon. It's made by the citizen investigation team called NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT. It's the best made pentagon film out there IMO, and it effectively destroys the possibility a plane could have hit the pentagon, now was it a predator drone or a missle? I don't know but no 767 hit the pentagon that day, that much I do know.

[HEBGB]

Lefty could it not just be blind luck? LOLO :0)

[_CREATIONIST_]

lol... isnt there a woman that appeared a few times on AJ show, working at the pentagon saying she saw no wreckage when she walked out.. just wondering...

And oh, what happened in Pennsylvania? The hole in the ground? Missile? No planer or planer?

the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down.

[Kilika]

Lefty could it not just be blind luck? LOLO :0)

Hmm, let's see, uhm, well, NO.

[citizenx]

Creationist, agree with you on both Pentagon and Shanksville.  It was a shoot-down.

[agentbluescreen]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I say it is impossible that it was a commercial airliner like a 737 or whatever they claim it was. No way. My knowledge from working in air combat simulators for the US Navy tell me no way a pilot could have pulled off that manuver at high speed, definately with a large aircraft. I've personally flown both an F-4 and F-14 US Navy simulator because I use to operate and maintain them for the Navy. I could fly as well as many of those new jetjocks straight out of school and I was enlisted. Top Gun test pilots would come and calibrate the simulators to verify realism. Nope, sorry, no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

Everybody and every documentary I have ever seen agrees wholeheartedly with your assessment. In the final analysis the JPADS THING just TOTALLY fits perfectly with the Pentagon crime scenario.

Of one thing you can be absolutely certain beyond any shadow of any doubt whatsoever; if al FBIduh had confiscated and discovered clearly captured photographic/video evidence of al CIAduh "Saudi-suicide Ayrabs" flying a commercial jet airliner into the side of the Pentagon for the "host of the stars phase"  of the Daniel Chapter 8 Show attacks on 9/11, the postcards of such stop action photography would be both in the public domain and be more popular than Holy Cards of Our Lady of Guadaloupe

[citizenx]

Thank you, bluescreen.  The voice of reason.

[ThomasPaine2008]

I've watched the "National Security Alert" video again, as what I wrote on my webpage was from memory.  I show the pic of the guys carrying the tarp, and one of them, Moran, does not say what was under it, but mentioned that he had previously misidentified the plane which flew towards the Pentagon, which he was a witness to, as a 737.  I will update my page appropriately.  Also, I notice they have their own 3D models of the scene available to researchers, and I asked if there were any available.  I will ask them for theirs.  Maybe they could make them publicly available.

However, the interviewer finds and names two witnesses which saw a plane fly low over the Pentagon just after the explosion.  Roosevelt Roberts Jr., a Pentagon police officer, said he saw a commercial airliner, silver in color, flying away low, nearly at the level of the light poles, from the back of the Pentagon just after an explosion which he thought was the plane hitting the building; although he had an earlier time for the incident than other sources.  This was like, within ten seconds afterwords.  His interview was recorded 11/30/2001, and confirmed by the filmmakers.  On Dec. 13, Arlington cemetery Eric Dihle had a recorded interview on 12/13/2001, he said that the first thing that was reported was that people said a bomb went off, and the jet kept on going.

No witnesses say they saw two airliners in the area just before the explosion.  There was just one, and it looked like a commercial airliner.  It was thus, not a C-130.  Witnesses had witnessed a different C-130 in the area about three minutes beforehand.  Thus, I have presented two eyewitnesses whose testimony suggests that the airliner flew over the Pentagon (really, CIT has), and one photo enlargement that sure does not look like the nose of a 757.  In this thread, nobody has commented yet on just what they think that is, or if it is too blurry to tell.

To my knowledge, it has not been controversial to suggest that no plane hit the Pentagon.  Two statements virtually all Truthers agree with, as far as I have seen, is "9/11 was an inside job" and "the damage at the Pentagon is not consistent with the crash of a Boeing 757 there."  It is a very controversial matter to suggest that no planes hit the WTC towers, even in the 9/11 Truth movement; but I deal in evidence.  Even in the video "Loose Change", if memory serves, they suggest that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, and quote Rumsfeld talking about the "the missile to damage this building."  I know what I see in the Judicial Watch video, and even if one looks like a plane, what I see in the other one does not look like a 757, or even a plane at all.  That's a problem for the official story, whether someone only wants to talk about the other video or not.

[agentbluescreen]

Interesting, this totally incriminating "covered JPADS Tomahawk-pallet platform near the road being hustled off under the tarp" photo is suddenly disappearing everywhere ROTFLMAO

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/216-large.jpg

(seems it hit a couple light poles and so, landed a bit further out than they'd expected it to, so it took a bit too long to gather up, bundle, conceal and recover)

They even tried to shut down the forum here exactly as they did when we exposed the Mossad truck-bombed WTC7 Triage Deathcamp connection to the Murraugh Building dry-run after Barry Jennings' suspicious assassination.

The behindthecurtain site has been shut down too

[agentbluescreen]

You guys deserve a medal, use it b4 we lose it!
 

[agentbluescreen]

YOO HOO Mr. Sunstein!

Thanks for making us post this EVERYWHERE....

[Kilika]

You know what's telling also about that photo of those guys carrying that box, is that nearly every one of them are wearing office dresss type clothing, rather than a team in cammo work clothes. These guys look like they were hurried together to move that thing, like they went around grabbing people from their offices or something. Inbody in the military knows the difference between a "dress" work uniform and a "utility" work uniform like cammos or the Navy and dungarees. Why is so important that they didn't have guys there in labor type uniforms. The one guy is wearing suspenders for crying out loud!

Very suspicious.

[ThomasPaine2008]

The guy with the suspenders is just a regular guy, although probably a Pentagon employee.  He is interviewed in the "National Security Alert" video, and he affirms the northern approach path; which is not the official approach path, nor is it over the downed light poles.

My site is still there.  I took down that pic on my site, since what I said about it in the writeup on "National Security Alert" wasn't accurate.  I have been accessing this forum over the Tor network, and even going to forum.prisonplanet.com resulted in it not coming up at all, although prisonplanet.com itself was coming up.  After that, I was having trouble staying logged in, and I thought something fishy was going on.  Restarting Tor and my browser cleared up the problem happily.  I would say non-event, but in the mean-time, I posted my pic, and my experiences at the forum at the Truthaction.org forum.  I set up a poll at their forum, asking what it looked most like.  The choices were 1) A Boeing, 2) Some different kind of aircraft, 3) a drone, 4) a missile, or 5) too blurry to hazard a guess.  Interestingly, I looked at it at one point, and it had 14 views, and one response, saying it looked most like a Boeing.  I go to see if there were any replies a few hours later, and the whole topic is gone!

I'm not aware of the proof that the photo is a "covered JPADS Tomahawk-pallet platform near the road being hustled off under the tarp."  I saw a story on rense.com saying the blue covering was a service tent, and pointing out how light it seemed to be to the people carrying it.  I can also put up your identification, with my disclaimer that I'm not aware how that is proven.

If you don't see any posts from me in the next, say six months, since surely I will have something useful to contribute in that time, stop by my site, and I'll have something up explaining why; unless I am blocked here and by my webserver.  All they have to do here is prohibit Tor logins.  I hope this demonstrates that there are useful posts over the Tor network.  If one deems this photo unimportant, then the materials about an explosion on 9/11 at WTC6, exploding cars, or the "Q group" will probably come as news to most.  If these topics are not news to you, I try to bring together the juiciest items that are public knowledge on each topic I have covered as yet.  I will soon have an original study on the faces of some of the supposed Al-Qaeda hijackers (although I believe some to have been associated with Osama, also).  I'm happy to report that I am not being blocked from my posts here, nor is my site down.