Author Topic: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11  (Read 163399 times)

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,910
  • The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!
    • GlobalGulag.com
Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« on: August 23, 2007, 03:51:31 pm »
It's interesting to note that there is only one hole in the Pentagon that maybe the body of the plane went through. But where did the wings, engines and tail fins go? The engines on a 767 are roughly 9 ft around and are the heaviest equipment on the plane. If the body of the plane is capable of punching a hole through 3 rings of the massive concrete walls of the Pentagon, there should also be holes where the engines went through. But there are no holes from the engines which rules out a 767. Let's also not forget that the section of the Pentagon that was hit had been renovated and reinforced to make the walls even more stronger than they were originally.

As for a small plane doing that kind of damage is even less likely. It was most likely a missile that looked like a plane.

Missile pics.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Harpoon_Missile_lg.jpg

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_SLAM-ER_Highlight_Sheet_lg.jpg

Lots of pics of winged missiles here
http://www.members.aol.com/ultraphoto/WingedMissiles1.htm

It's very possible in this case that witnesses that thought they saw some kind of plane as others said they heard a missile are both correct by mistaking a winged missile for a plane.

Witness videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcMOgs2gfo
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2007, 11:21:47 pm »
Nope.

There was definitely a twin engine passenger jet. (but it didn't hit the building)

I know because I knocked on doors in Arlington and talked to the people on the street.

They all saw a very large and very loud passenger jet fly low and fast over the neighborhoods timed perfectly with the explosion.

But it flew on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the light poles or cause the physical damage to the building.



http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm

http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm


Offline Kregener

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,728
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2007, 11:56:09 pm »


???
Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a hospital makes you a doctor.

Stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2007, 08:13:15 am »
Nobody saw a global hawk people.

Nobody saw a missile.

There were no missiles or global hawks.

They used a real twin engine passenger jet as a psychological tool when the actual destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives just like in the WTC.

The reason the plane didn't hit the Pentagon is because it is their own headquarters that they did not plan to completely demolish so they wanted to control the damage perfectly.

The time for speculation is done.

We now have PROOF.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo proving the physical damage was staged.

History was made when each of these people all independently pointed north instead of south:





Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,910
  • The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2007, 09:27:44 am »
What is the white contrail about? It is known fact that planes do not create contrails at low altitudes. Contrails from planes only appear above 30,000 feet. The contrail at the Pentagon is just above the ground. Also no plane, big or small, can fly that low to the ground and keep up the speed needed to go through 3 rings of the Pentagon. The faster a plane goes, the more airspace under it's wings is needed to maintain lift. As low as this trail is along the ground is the plane would only be able to fly at low speed as if it were coming in for a landing. Not fast enough to go through 3 rings. Only a missile, in my opinion, would be capable of doing that. So maybe nobody saw a missile because they were distracted by the planes? They also would not hear a missile launch because of the planes engine sounds drowning out the sound of a missile.




This missile launch, even though it's a surface to air and not along the ground launch, demonstrates that a missile creates a white trail at any altitude. The reason a missile trail is not affected by it's altitude from the ground is because of the type of fuel it uses to propel it, which is rocket fuel and not deisel as in the case with planes.



“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2007, 12:14:30 pm »
The security video was vetted, supplied and manipulated by the perps.

There is zero reason to accept it as valid.

1.  Not a single eyewitness mentions the smoke trail.

2. The smoke plume casts no shadow while everything else in the video does.




The video was manipulated to show "something" hitting the building but they kept it ambiguous to sew confusion.

We must not ever automatically accept government supplied data as valid.





Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,910
  • The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2007, 01:31:35 pm »
Thanks for the feedback. Upon closer inspection it does look like a cheap paint job. It even looks closer to the camera than the lighter smoke in the explosion frame. I'm fairly new at researching the events of 911, been doing so for nearly a year now so still have alot to learn. But it also doesn't take a rocket scientist either to figure out 911 was an inside job, which it seems that we all agree with.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,910
  • The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2007, 01:56:32 pm »
I must say though that I did make one valid point about how it was impossible for a plane to hit the Pentagon, as they would like us to believe., that being the faster a plane is flying, the more airspace is needed underneath the wings to maintain lift. An example of this was from a 911 documentary I saw (911 Ripple Effect) talking about a 757 flying at 500 mph cannot fly any closer to the ground than 60 feet. To get closer to the ground it would have to slow down as if it was coming in to land. I'm not sure how to explain it to make any sense, but it did make a valid point. If you want to see it, I have it on my website. It starts talking about the ground effect at 46 min. into the documentary.

http://bannerfrenzy.net/freedomforums/viewtopic.php?t=148
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2007, 04:23:12 pm »
I like DVK; he had me on his show last week and is even selling our dvd's for us on his website.

But while there may be some validity to the "ground effect" in general.........it simply doesn't apply to the Pentagon attack.

I hate to seem like a "know-it-all" and believe me I am not trying to be combative for the sake of it.

But the official flight path requires a significant descent before reaching the "pentalawn" and there simply isn't enough time after that for ground effect to be a factor.

Believe me....I KNOW the plane did not come low and level across that lawn to hit the building under the first two floors.

There is no way Hani Hanjour (or anyone for that matter) could have maneuvered a large jet in that manner.

I don't even believe they could have pulled it off with a drone.

It would have likely broken up all over the lawn after hitting the light poles.

Please don't think I am trying to shoot you down but it's very important that we focus in on points that can not be debunked.

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2007, 06:34:27 pm »
Whilst the pre-planted explosives theory hangs together pretty well, it does not explain how 6 neat holes were punctured in the Pentagon's walls.

A static device would also have sent more debris onto the Pentagon lawn and could not have left the six neat holes in the walls of rings C, D and E. Only a DU penetrator can do this, these walls were no amateur job, they were hardcore 3 feet thick blast walls and would require a top of the range penetrator to pierce 6 of them (18 feet of very high grade reinforced concrete)
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2007, 07:06:56 pm »
Whilst the pre-planted explosives theory hangs together pretty well, it does not explain how 6 neat holes were punctured in the Pentagon's walls.

A static device would also have sent more debris onto the Pentagon lawn and could not have left the six neat holes in the walls of rings C, D and E. Only a DU penetrator can do this, these walls were no amateur job, they were hardcore 3 feet thick blast walls and would require a top of the range penetrator to pierce 6 of them (18 feet of very high grade reinforced concrete)

Please don't hate me but I have to correct you again!

The bottom two floors of the Pentagon between the E and C ring are NOT separated by rings.

You can tell in this image if you count the windows:


And in this image because you can see all the way through:



So the notion that it had to bust through 6 reinforced walls is a truth movement myth.

The only "holes" that existed were the E and C ring outer walls.

Ironically enough, our strongest detractor, Russell Pickering, has the best hypothesis for how they created the c-ring hole:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/091.html


I'm on your side man!

I really appreciate your honest efforts at figuring out this insane puzzle. 

It's not easy with all the bad info out there!






Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2007, 08:01:00 pm »
But you're right, most of them saw some sort of plane, but the flyover plane was probably not Flight 77 because some eyewitnesses say that it was smaller than a 757 should be, and others say that it was a white plane. Like you said in The Pentacon, the flyover plane could have been a plane with some 757 characteristics, but it was actually a different plane. Most likely a drone.

This is quite true.

The plane could not look exactly like an AA jet just in case people saw it fly over the building.

That way they could simply tell anyone who reported this that they saw another plane.

This is exactly why they had the 2nd plane cover story.

We have exclusive interviews with many more witnesses from the neighborhoods further back in the flight path.

Most of them describe the plane as "white" just like Sgt. Brooks did. 

But they ALL describe it as a large twin engine passenger jet.

It was probably some sort of military modified drone 737 or something like it but it most definitely was NOT AA77.

In fact even according to the 9/11 Commission AA77 was completely unaccounted for by Air Traffic Control for over 30 minutes!

That is plenty of time to perform a plane swap a la operation northwoods.



Offline Bossgator

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Patriot in Arizona
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2007, 12:19:42 pm »
As I posted in another thread...

 What's more odd to me is the apparent lack of video evidence around such a secure building. I mean come on! The Pentagon is all about security.

I can also say with some confidence that I don't see any way possible for the plane to make the kind of manuver it would take at the speed claimed, that is shown in the parking lot camera footage. That extremely short, rough footage shows on the right side of one frame the front of a supposed aircraft with an attitude of level flight headed straight for the Pentagon.

When in the Navy, I worked on flight simulators, so I do know a thing or two about flight characteristics, and what can be done, and how long it takes to do it at high speeds. I worked on an F-14/F-4 Air Combat sim, and those birds are extremely manuverable compared to an airliner, and at a speed of 350-400 knots, there's no way the pilot could have cleared the Naval building, dropped it's nose to within less than 50 feet from the ground, level out and travel at that attitude for the distance the camera footage portends. No way no how!
 
 
In the end, all that's left is the truth! - Bossgator

When in politics and faced with two men who are both evil, do you choose the lesser of those two evils? NO! Execute them both and find someone who is *not* evil.

Offline zenitSpb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I dont believe in Conspiracy's, I believe in Truth
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2007, 11:20:29 am »
Ok...as much as i do believe in that no actual plane hit the Pentagon, the one of the most obvious questions that comes to my mind is this...
"If the US goverment really wanted people to believe that a plane DID hit the Pentagon, why wouldnt they just fly a plane into the Pentagon? After all, they did try to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon by flyin different flight simulators etc...(but the evidence which is there is really goin agenst the gov...ie...NO major debrie, NO CLEAR video footage, the mysterious "blue box"(the one which was carried away by loadz of FBI guys(could easily contained a drone or sometin like that)))

Also, I have my thoughts which lead me to believe(many of u might know this already) that the only vid released by the gov. is fake..."Posted by: Route24"...the 2 clips which show the 1st 2 frames of the crash, 2 frame...notice how the (i think its a some sort of a small radio tower) is right in the middle of the explosion, notice how the explosion, well, covered the whole structure, i mean the side facing the camera is completely covered in red hence fire(who ever was editing this didnt do a good job)...if any1 of u would look at frame 3(sadly its not there) that structure has takin NO damage at all!!!...Now, if u would take a look at the Pentagon after the crash(photos etc), u will see that that structure has taken NO damage at all, and aslo, does the video show that big of an explosion?!?!?!( U'll know wat i mean after lookin at the photos etc)


Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2007, 01:15:31 pm »
@Craig Ranke CIT

Actually if you count the line of travel indicated on the picture still shows at least 4 walls pierced, I do not know how thick they all were (except the outer wall) but they are not your average wall and are stronger and thicker than most.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline A K

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2007, 05:20:21 pm »
Big Plane + Ground = http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/lockerbie/

Doesn't look much like that little shallow crevice in Shanksville, does it?

And nothing like the Pentagon.

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2007, 11:56:45 am »
nobody knows what took out the light poles, but it sure as hell wasn't flight 77 as this trajectory is literally impossible for a boeing to carry out, not to mention a human pilot.

The poles are part of the psyops as a missiles would not take them out either, I guess small charges were used to blow them to confuse the facts of the case.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Craig Ranke CIT

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2007, 06:54:37 pm »
The light poles were removed and planted in advance.

4 out of the 5 were hidden off to the side.



Even if someone noticed them on the grass before the event they would cause no reason for alarm.

The light poles were virtually unmentioned in the media in the chaos of that day and were COMPLETELY IGNORED in all official reports.

Most average citizens have never even heard about them at all.

Even most people in the movement aren't aware of them today!

So EVEN IF someone noticed a pole on the grass and EVEN IF they simply happened to put 2 and 2 together after the fact what do you think would happen if they called the FBI about it?

Exactly.

Nada.

The only pole that was on the road was light pole number 1, the one that allegedly  hit Lloyd's cab.

It was likely planted minutes AFTER the event when the feds blocked traffic and surrounded the scene.

A sequence of images from the Ingersoll colletion supporting this is available here.

This image in particular shows you how the feds had surrounded the area by the pole and cab and could have easily planted everything without anyone noticing or asking questions while attention was focused on the Pentagon:





Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2007, 09:45:28 pm »
OK. So let me get this straight. A passenger jet flies toward the pentagon and just as it reaches the pentagon a bomb goes off and the plane while looking like it hit the pentagon actually flies over it. And the light poles are planted in order to make people think the plane came from somewhere else. Uh...what is the point? The only reason to plant lightpoles would be to make it look like it came from another direction. Why? There is no point.

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2007, 09:49:42 pm »
yes there is, point out the poles, say that is where the plane came from, corroborate this with planted witnesses and then hey presto you have your story.

This is of course very different from the real story, but then that is your aim. Remember the plane that flew over the pentagon, well that helps too, not quite coming from the correct direction but loads of people saw a low flying plane, presumably shocked, they then turn round (often while driving) and see an explosion.

Many are already in shock from the WTC event, details get confused.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2007, 09:14:04 am »
yes there is, point out the poles, say that is where the plane came from, corroborate this with planted witnesses and then hey presto you have your story.

This is of course very different from the real story, but then that is your aim. Remember the plane that flew over the pentagon, well that helps too, not quite coming from the correct direction but loads of people saw a low flying plane, presumably shocked, they then turn round (often while driving) and see an explosion.

Many are already in shock from the WTC event, details get confused.


Or, you could just point out the smoldering pentagon, say that is where the plane came from, corroborate this with planted witnesses and presto you have your story. There is no need for "planted lightpoles".

Look, if you guys insist on this, imo, silly theory of planted lightpoles, use a more logical reason, like......well, since the plane never flew low enough to actually hit the pentagon...with the planted lightpoles you have your "proof" that it actually did fly low enough! Presto! The plane was flying low enough to hit the pentagon...hence the reason for "planting lightpoles". I don't believe that of course but at least it makes more sense...to me anyway. Now you also have to believe that the people who planted the lightpoles were in on the conspiracy, the cab driver Lloyd England was involved in the conspiracy, the many eyewitnesses, some of who were involved in the conspiracy...this is all unnecessary. The official story is the biggest smoking gun in which to hang them with. The fact that the official story states that Hani Hanjour flew the plane into the first floor of the pentagon while doing maneuvers that would make Chuck Yeager proud in order to avoid hitting an important part of the building is the best proof of an inside job of all. This only proves the use remote control planes designed to hit the places they want hit.

Popular mechanics which the government has outsourced to be their spokesmen on this issue repeat the same thing over and over on this issue. They say, that Hani Hanjour was an experienced pilot with 240 hours of flying time and actually had an FAA license which made him the best pilot of the bunch. Here is what they don't tell you. OF all the "hijackers" involved in 9/11 none of them have more documentation on them that they were a horrible pilot than Hani Hanjour. That JFK JR when he died had over 300 hours of flight time and was described as an inexperienced pilot. That during the Mousoui trial it was testified to under oath that instructors aware of this license could not believe it was actually issued and reported to the FAA that some kind of mistake must be made because he could not fly a plane. The license itself was no longer valid on 9/11 and was issued in the first place by some mysterious Arab who fled the country after 9/11. What does this mean? It means that ALL the planes were remote controlled, Hani Hanjour could not have done what he is claimed to have done on 9/11. Bush himself according to the 9/11 commission report was very impressed with Hanjours piloting skills. This is a guy that it was testified to under oath by flying instructors that he was a horrible pilot. All the pentagon proves, s how obvious remote control was used on the airliners involved. Let them hang themselves with their own story.

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2007, 09:58:37 am »
-- Just some things I'd like to point out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-surface_missile
***extract***
One of the major advantages of air-to-surface missiles over other weapons available for aircraft to use to attack ground targets is the standoff distance they provideThis allows them to launch the weapons outside the most intense air defences around the target site. Most air-to-surface missiles are fire-and-forget in order to take most advantage of the standoff distance - they allow the launching platform to turn away after launch. Some missiles have enough range to be launched over the horizon. These missiles (typically either cruise or anti-ship missiles) need to be able to find and home in on the target autonomously.

Sub-categories of air-to-surface missiles include:

air-launched anti-tank guided missiles (typically launched from helicopters)
air-launched cruise missiles
air-launched anti-ship missiles
anti-radiation missiles
______________

-- Now that would certainly allow (account) for some possible eyewitness testimony, i.e., folks claiming they SAW an airplane // when they may very well have // the same may have fired (or remotely controlled) a missile inbound toward the targeted reinforced west wall, and then simply turned away and exited the local.  There was mention of seeing a large military looking airplane somewhat near the airspace (vicinity) high over the Pentagon that morning, but it appears the sighting to have been unrelated to the actual happening // well, maybe it wasn't so unrelated to the happening.  Maybe it was directly related and did that launch or remote control thing.  One of the advantages mentioned is this possibility, the fact that the weapon can be launched (fired) from outside a given target's defensive perimeter (and the Pentagon certainly has that going for it -- a defensive perimeter.  This tactic may very well account for the reason that no ground-to-air defense system kicked in.

Just some rambling thoughts to share with everyone; the round hole and the reported smell of cordite does it for me.  That .., PLUS NO AIRPLANE (or one even fully and/or partially identified as one) was ever recovered and reassembled from the alleged crash site.  Duh  :P

Here, take a closer look at a cruise missile strike on a target:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hma_Bh45bD8

-- edited to add:
THE MYSTERIOUS AIRPLANE OVER WASHINGTON
http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

-- edited to add:
Now take a moment and see for yourself at HOW LARGE A TARGET THE TOP OF THE PENTAGON ACTUALLY IS (from above) compared to the crazy 'official story' that an airplane did a highly skilled maneuver and crashed into the building's much smaller side wall --

How stupid do they really think we are to fall for a nutty story like that
???

We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2007, 11:39:52 am »
@jimd300

You really have to realise that NO PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON, it was not a remote controlled flight 77 nor was it a remote controlled military cargo plane of a similar size.

These types of planes DO  NOT MAKE 12 FOOT HOLES IN THE SIDE OF A BUILDING

where ever the hijacked plane ended up, it never got near the Pentagon and certainly did not crash into it.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline whatistruth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2007, 01:56:12 am »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAgYVJ1jKZ0&mode=related&search=


This isnt so 'new' but its a different video, no idea if its been posted before.

Offline Dawookie

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2007, 03:49:28 pm »
Big Plane + Ground = http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/lockerbie/

Doesn't look much like that little shallow crevice in Shanksville, does it?

And nothing like the Pentagon.

 And the reason it doesnt look the same is the simple fact that the 747 and 757 are two completely different sized planes.  Empty weight difference alone is over 200k lbs.  A 757 cant create a crater the size of a 747 because its much smaller.

Offline XR500Final

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 723
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2007, 12:02:15 am »
My two bits on this - is the plane never hit, pre-placed explosives simply detonated, and the small plane flew off.

What happened to the real Flight 77...

I still remember hearing the raw accounts just over the radio, they said very specifically that several planes had disappeared from radar over the Atlantic.  I strongly believe at least flight 77 if not others were simply blown up over the ocean - they were trans-continental flights, and they never departed from their original flight path.  No one would know different, and the evidence is on the bottom of the ocean.  It also answers the account that the first passenger lists do not list any Hi-jackers on the flights.  That was not a typo, they were never there, and it explained why Loose Change sourced many of the Hijackers as still alive.

It gives the story credence, because then the families are really missing their loved ones.

Then all the plane doubles were sent on their 'into the various buildings' bit...

But the real problem was flight 97 - it did not depart until 45 minutes too late, people say it was shot down, I would conclude it was simple detonated in the air as well.

Chris Bollyn has stated he has figured out and started to piece together the puzzle of 911.  He has pointed the finger at a Mossad ran American based airplane company that operates in total secret.  He has a broken elbow by 3 undercover officers immediately after interviewing the executive of the company to back up that he was definitely getting warmer...

www.bollyn.com

Offline Arabesque

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Arabesque 9/11 Truth
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2007, 08:33:42 pm »
Nope.

Nobody saw a global hawk people.

Nobody saw a missile.

There were no missiles or global hawks.

No one saw a flyover either
, and yet somehow this theory is gold?  I don't think so.

Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2007, 09:09:45 pm »
people did report seeing a small plane or missile, and people did see a large plane coming from the wrong direction (i.e. not the alleged hijacked plane), they saw it travel towards the Pentagon.

I thought I had seen witness reports of it flying over, perhaps not, but I am certain I have seen reports of witnesses seeing a small plane or missile. They are in some of the 9-11 movies.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Arabesque

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Arabesque 9/11 Truth
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2007, 09:14:20 pm »
people did report seeing a small plane or missile, and people did see a large plane coming from the wrong direction (i.e. not the alleged hijacked plane), they saw it travel towards the Pentagon.

I thought I had seen witness reports of it flying over, perhaps not, but I am certain I have seen reports of witnesses seeing a small plane or missile. They are in some of the 9-11 movies.


It is true that a few (about four or five) described the plane as small out of more than one hundred statements, but they all had this in common: they were all from farther away.  No one "saw" a missile.  Many described the "plane" as a missile, or that it sounded like a missile, but no one "saw a missile".

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2007, 12:01:28 am »
there is no other way to account for the pierced walls (3 rings worth), classic DU penetrator behaviour (or other armour piercing missile)

A bomb on the ground would not have had such an effect and we know that no large or medium sized plane hit the pentagon as the impossible is just that, impossible.

However, zero witnesses saying even a small plane OR missile is both odd and frustrating.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Arabesque

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Arabesque 9/11 Truth
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2007, 12:13:31 am »
there is no other way to account for the pierced walls (3 rings worth), classic DU penetrator behaviour (or other armour piercing missile)

A bomb on the ground would not have had such an effect and we know that no large or medium sized plane hit the pentagon as the impossible is just that, impossible.

However, zero witnesses saying even a small plane OR missile is both odd and frustrating.

The plane didn't pierce "3 rings worth" of walls.  Take a look at the construction of the Pentagon on the ground floor. 

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Cross-Section.jpg
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/three-rings-nine-feet-of-steel.html

Quote
But... while the upper floors of each ring are separated by spaces for light and air, floors one and two are completely roofed over and the ring distiction is meaningless. The attack plane is alleged to have penetrated three rings (E,D,C), all at the first-floor level, a single, enormous, open area with support provided by spaced columns, and variously divided by weaker internal walls.
The only major wall that was "penetrated" was the C-hole. 

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/columns.gif

And by the way, the light pole damage lines up perfectly with the internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/023.jpg
As for the witnesses, they were taken out of context by disingenuous filmmakers.  Read the list of witnesses statements I linked to.  There are no statements of anyone "seeing" a missile.  "It was like a cruise missile with wings" left out the part about it being an AA plane.

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2007, 12:33:54 am »
Quote
The plane didn't pierce "3 rings worth" of walls.

the plane didn't pierce anything at all as there was no plane (unless a small plane was used as a missile), the alleged plane sure as hell never crashed there nor anything resembling the alleged plane in size. I have seen clearer pictures and I must admit it looks like it pierced 4 walls not 6 as for one of the rings the missile head passed through a connecting block.

Yes the light pole damage lines up right but not so much with the eyewitnesses, indeed looking at Pentacon the film it is clear that the plane they saw came from entirely the wrong direction, and there are numerous witnesses who can attest to this.

Further if the alleged plane had come down the route of the light poles it would have sustained damage , wings torn off, wreckage, but alas there is none as no plane came along the routes of the damaged light poles. Further the damaged light poles were neatly plucked out of the ground and did not have damage consistent with being hit by a large plane.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline jimd3100

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2007, 06:31:37 am »
So The cab driver LLoyd England is under a mind control spell, and other witnesses are lieing? And this reporter went to the trouble of making this video because he is really working for the government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWXJng7MhR8

There is no need for planted lightpoles and missiles

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2007, 08:15:40 am »
The plane didn't pierce "3 rings worth" of walls.  Take a look at the construction of the Pentagon on the ground floor. 
The only major wall that was "penetrated" was the C-hole. 

LIE - that is only for the tunnels, and how high is the ground floor?  12 feet?  Is that the height of flt 77?

Quote
And by the way, the light pole damage lines up perfectly with the internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon.
the light poles do not line up with the impact at all and the only thing that could penetrate would be a missle or multiple explosions.  BTW - the flyover theory is not RIP, it is so alive it is having babies!

Quote
As for the witnesses, they were taken out of context by disingenuous filmmakers.
WTF?  filmakers?  you mean like the filmaker that did the "let's roll" movie?

Quote
 Read the list of witnesses statements I linked to.  There are no statements of anyone "seeing" a missile.  "It was like a cruise missile with wings" left out the part about it being an AA plane.
Everyone saw a plane, and the trajectory of the plane never came near the lightpoles that were taken out early and completely inconsistent with a plane hitting them.

but whatever hit the pentagon was no plane.

Also over 80 video camera tapes of the incident that have not been released.

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

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1

Hey see loose change final cut, it is a great flick!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Biggs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,443
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2007, 04:46:56 pm »
So The cab driver LLoyd England is under a mind control spell, and other witnesses are lieing? And this reporter went to the trouble of making this video because he is really working for the government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWXJng7MhR8

The planes were remote controlled. There is no need for planted lightpoles and missiles

the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, do you not understand? large passenger jets do not fit into 12 foot holes, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, only small objects fit into 12 foot holes, especially when travelling at hundreds of miles and hour.
 GET IT YET?
NO LARGE PLANE CRASHED AT THE PENTAGON

everything else is just window dressing
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Arabesque

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Arabesque 9/11 Truth
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2007, 08:32:53 pm »
LIE - that is only for the tunnels, and how high is the ground floor?  12 feet?  Is that the height of flt 77?
the light poles do not line up with the impact at all and the only thing that could penetrate would be a missle or multiple explosions.  BTW - the flyover theory is not RIP, it is so alive it is having babies!
WTF?  filmakers?  you mean like the filmaker that did the "let's roll" movie?
Everyone saw a plane, and the trajectory of the plane never came near the lightpoles that were taken out early and completely inconsistent with a plane hitting them.

but whatever hit the pentagon was no plane.

Also over 80 video camera tapes of the incident that have not been released.

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

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1

Hey see loose change final cut, it is a great flick!

In fact it is not a "lie", this is how the Pentagon was designed.  See Pentagonresearch.com:

Recommended Reading:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/118.html

Russel Pickering of Pentagon Research shows how the building is constructed:


Quote
Here you can see the second story roof covering the space between "E" & "D" and "D" & "C" rings.... This is an example of what the space between the collapse and the "exit hole" looked like. It would have had wood frame walls built in to divide the space up. This is actually from one of the upper floors because the columns are smaller. One floor 1 the columns were 21 inches square. Each progressive floor the columns were smaller.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/118.html

The light pole damage does indeed form a straight line of damage aligning with the damage inside of the Pentagon.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html



There was a standstill traffic jam in a highway less than 500 feet away from the Pentagon

No one ever reported a a plane flying over the building.

And the hole is far larger than many claim it to be, as is finally recognized in the new loose change movie.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

Quote
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006

Grainy video stills showing what is claimed to be the nose cone of Flight 77 will only result in an increased circus of debate around the issue of what happened at the Pentagon in preparation for a future release of clear video footage that 'debunks' people who question the official version of 9/11.

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2007, 03:11:38 am »
arabesque: What is the height of the roof of the first floor?

Where are the markings on the grass?

What is the composition of an aircraft?

What are the densest areas?  The fuselage or the engines?

Since you seem to like pictures so much, here you go:


VDOT tour of light poles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoypAJ2KD-8




But 4 minutes later at 9:52 in image DSC_0415 you can see that the feds have now blocked the area off and the pole is now in place.


















All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2007, 03:30:25 am »
Arabesque what a wonderful conclusion:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html

If it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, I don't believe it was piloted by Hani Hanjour. All industry professionals clearly stated his piloting skills and English were so poor they believed he shouldn't even be licensed.

There are photos of aircraft debris outside and inside the Pentagon. There are no large aircraft structures that one would intuitively expect from an aircraft the size of a 757-200. Some of the debris can be specifically identified with a 757 aircraft. I personally believe the amount of debris exceeds what could be planted without detection.

I believe that the damage to the Pentagon is anomalous in many respects.There are violations of physics that need to be explained. It may be that there are explanations for these but in a total void of truthful information from our government we don't know what they are. Voids of this nature will be filled in by a culture of people hungry to know the facts. Some attempts to fill the void may at first be inaccurate, but after being challenged and reconsidered in an open community I believe understanding this is possible. I myself will persist in this direction.

I believe the "exit hole" was caused by secondary explosives.

There are direct contradictions and irreconcilable variants in the evidence made available. This forces researchers to make choices that always leave some other aspect of the evidence hard to accept or omitted altogether. This may be disinformation intended to deceive. Some series of events did occur to result in the collective body of physical and eyewitness data available. Persistence and logic are the only tools we have short of somebody coming forward and explaining what really happened. I believe the stakes are so high that we may have to wait for a "death bed" confession if the official story is not true.

I find it as hard to believe that a Cessna 172 unqualified hijacker could fly a 757 for the first time with military precision as I do aircraft override theories. The plane swap theory leaves me with 59 people (I have subtracted the 5 hijackers) missing but it explains why not one passenger seat is evident in the nearly 1500 photos I have inspected both inside and outside the Pentagon. I am forced to choose one. This type of dilemma is discouraging but it is what the current administration has seen fit to leave us with.

The "coincidence" of the aircraft striking the only blast-resistant portion of the Pentagon (that was due to be completed that week) when more destructive and militarily advantageous options were significantly quicker and easier to execute is a source of improbability that causes me to doubt the official story.

The fact that all four aircraft that day were collectively at 30% occupancy is indicative of something, but I don't know what. Operation Northwoods referred to an aircraft that, "would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases" that will later be taken to an "auxiliary field.....where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers". They go so far as to mention conducting, "funerals for mock-victims". I would like to see the passenger manifests of those four flights for the days prior to 9/11 to see if this was a normal situation. The FBI won't let that happen.

The fact that three out of the four aircraft including those piloted by experienced military pilots did not broadcast any emergency signal is suspicious. Flight 93 announced there was a bomb on board before shutting off its transponder.

The numerous war games and emergency drills being conducted by government agencies that day (some with exact parallels to what really happened) are coincidences beyond reason.

The loss of cargo and U.S. Mail was never mentioned by anyone, most notably the U.S. Postal Service. I would like to see the cargo manifest for each of those four aircraft on 9/11. That could have been millions of dollars in losses figuring that each aircraft had 1670 cubic feet of cargo space and regularly transported U.S. mail. The FBI won't let us see that information either.

The Pentagon should release all video of the event and allow independent verification of its authenticity. We have seen video of other major events that day and even videos of the 1993 WTC bombing, Madrid bombing and London bombings. The two videos the Department of Justice has released do not show anything that is identifiable as a 757. Why is the rest of the Pentagon video so secret?

A media contingent should be taken on a tour to the location where the Flight 77 wreckage is stored and allowed to verify the serial numbers of the pieces. They almost entirely reconstructed TWA 800 and even did videos to explain that event for the public. Why is Flight 77 so different?

If the government just did these simple "right-to-know" actions for American citizens, then in a 10 minute news broadcast our questions could be answered in regards to what happened at the Pentagon. But that would mean the public focus would shift to other elements of 9/11 and maybe that's what they don't want. But what would they want to hide?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2007, 03:51:30 pm »
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Pentagon: What happened on 9/11
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2007, 04:30:33 pm »
Stubblebine and his wife, psychiatrist Rima E. Laibow, M.D., founded the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), "a non-profit corporation devoted to protecting and promoting health freedom". A large part of what NSF does is to...

lobby against Codex Alimentarius and for DSHEA.

Codex Alimentarius - The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by  the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater. This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
________________________________________
DSHEA - It has been more than 12 years since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 was passed, legislation that has enabled millions of Americans to enjoy access to safe, effective and affordable dietary supplements.  However, Congress may soon consider new legislation that would trump DSHEA and put consumer access to dietary supplements at risk. The Coalition to Preserve DSHEA is actively working to ensure America continues to enjoy the benefits of good health that dietary supplements – including vitamins, minerals, and herbs – help provide. DSHEA.org is designed to provide you -- policymakers, media, industry representatives, and consumers -- valuable information about DSHEA and the dietary supplement industry.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately