Pentagon: What happened on 9/11

[A K]

Where did you get that photograph?  What does it purport to be and where was it photographed?  I mean, you or anyone else could have taken that picture on your front lawn.  There is nothing to identify the photo as from the Pentagon or from Flight 77.  Neither the object or the grass appear to have burn marks.

Flight 77 has over a million parts.  This is your iron clad proof?  Where are the other 999,999 parts?

[jimd3100]

To account for reports that people saw a 757, my guess is that a 757 flew just over the Pentagon, as the Global Hawk flew into the Pentagon, and landed at Reagan Airport.

My guess is someone would have seen a passenger jet fly over the pentagon as a global hawk crashed into it. No One did. One way to account for the reports of the people seeing the 757 crash into the building would be a 757 crashing into the building.

[phatbob426]

I stand corrected... the wingpsan of a Global Hawk is 116 ft.  My apologies. It's been a few weeks since I've discussed this theory.

So, jimd, are you suggesting that a 757 actually DID crash into the pentagon?

Why does the turbine found match one from the engine on a Global Hawk, but not one from a 757?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html

AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU.” ...

...If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine...

...AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine, such as the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H. “It could come from any jet engine,” Schwarz said

[GiveMeLiberty]

Why does the turbine found match one from the engine on a Global Hawk, but not one from a 757?

Read the following link which explains why the engine parts found match a 757.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[phatbob426]

So, why would the Honeywell guy say that the turbine didn't come from a 757?

GML, do you believe the official story?  What do you think happened at the Pentagon that day?

EDIT: A simple release of security tape footage showing an actual 757 would shut up all of us "conspiracy theorist loons."

[GiveMeLiberty]

So, why would the Honeywell guy say that the turbine didn't come from a 757?

Here is your clue about the Honeywell "expert", and I quote from Bollyn's article:

"The expert, who cannot be named, added:"

I could say more about Mr. Bollyn who wrote that article, but I won't waste my breath.

GML, do you believe the official story?

No, not all of it.

What do you think happened at the Pentagon that day?

I believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.

EDIT: A simple release of security tape footage showing an actual 757 would shut up all of us "conspiracy theorist loons."

Well there are several videos of the plane. I do agree that all of the videos should be released. Here is an image I found on another website.

[phatbob426]

Well... I guess that's that!  HA!  That video sucks...  And your answer "A 757 hit the Pentagon" is vague.

No offense...  I just want proof.

Was the 757 that hit the Pentagon Flight 77?

If not, what happened to the real Flight 77?

Why was Flight 77 tracked west of Ohio AFTER the Pentagon was hit?

There's way too many questions for me to be sold... Maybe YOU've got the answers to all of them though!

[TheGoodFight1984]

haha that is the worst bit of animated 'evidence' I have ever seen.. 1000 comedy points to whoever made that.

[GiveMeLiberty]

phatbob426,

Well, gosh. You're right. I don't have the answers that you want. Perhaps you should discuss this further with someone else who will give you the answers that you want. Good luck finding the truth.

[yanaar]

Confusion by design.  They don't want you looking at the possibility that a Pentagon mutiny counter-hijacked 77 and 93.  Soooo... all sorts of ridiculous evidence is planted... to keep everyone looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack... and not think!  WOULD THE PENTAGON SIT BACK AND ALLOW ITSELF TO BE ATTACKED!  Surely the events of 911 were not a surprise at the Pentagon.  INSIDERS SAID "f**k you to Bush, Cheney, et al.  That there was some sort of attack was to keep Cheney busy thinking he was commanding a plane into the Pentagon while 77 and 93 were escorted off target.

[GiveMeLiberty]

The Generator:






Tree and VDOT mast damage:



The Flightpath:

[phatbob426]

Nice try... but EVERY eyewitness, watch PentaCon, stated that the 757 flew NORTH of the citgo. The angle shown in your diagram shows the path of the craft that hit the Pentagon, which flew south of the citgo.

[GiveMeLiberty]

Nice try... but EVERY eyewitness, watch PentaCon, stated that the 757 flew NORTH of the citgo. The angle shown in your diagram shows the path of the craft that hit the Pentagon, which flew south of the citgo.

You should read all of this thread in the Faux Controversies section here at the Prison Planet forums:

The ultimate con on the 911 truth movement: Pentacon

Moderater jimd3100 does a really nice job of breaking things down.

Put simply, every single witness saw the plane crash into the building, and not one person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

EDIT: To add, the Flight Data Recorder recovered from the crash at the Pentagon is what gives the 61.2 degree angle in that picture. Notice how it lines up with the physical damage. Also there are witnesses to the South of Citgo approach, but you and CIT will deny that.

[whitelocust]

nice job showing us where the plane might have been.

now show us the rest of it, after the crash.

you know, the great big chunks that hang out after every plane crash.

[Brocke]

nice job showing us where the plane might have been.

now show us the rest of it, after the crash.

you know, the great big chunks that hang out after every plane crash.

Thank you! I was thinking the same thing.

[GiveMeLiberty]

nice job showing us where the plane might have been.

now show us the rest of it, after the crash.

you know, the great big chunks that hang out after every plane crash.

Yeah, because planes crash into buildings all of the time and leave big chunks hanging out. Wait, that's not right.

Have you seen the photos in this thread of the debris? There are more, but it's never enough for the those who deny at all costs instead of trying to find the truth.

Besides, why are you asking me to show you something that you would deny anyways? Shouldn't you go find it yourself like people who research things do, or do you need someone to hold your hand?

[phatbob426]

Yeah, because planes crash into buildings all of the time and leave big chunks hanging out. Wait, that's not right.

Have you seen the photos in this thread of the debris? There are more, but it's never enough for the those who deny at all costs instead of trying to find the truth.

Besides, why are you asking me to show you something that you would deny anyways? Shouldn't you go find it yourself like people who research things do, or do you need someone to hold your hand?

We do not believe substantial proof explaining all facets of what happened that day exists.  We are exhausted in looking.  Someone like you comes around every other day swearing up and down that you have the proof that we're exhausted in looking for, yet you fail to produce it.  We've seen the pictures of the debris.  We don't need to go back and look at them for the hundredth time over again.

You yourself agreed that you do not have all the answers, yet somehow you're convinced.  For someone so easily convinced yourself that a 757 did crash into the Pentagon, it's awfully hypocritical of you to knock us for believing one didn't.

How about this... Why wasn't there a serial number on the flight recorder box that was later produced?  Why is the timestamp on the video footage released 09-12-01?  Wouldn't you think that a security camera monitoring one of the top secured facilities in the world would have the correct date on the surveillance camera?

P.S.  I do not believe holograms were used.   

[jimd3100]

So, jimd, are you suggesting that a 757 actually DID crash into the pentagon?

No, the witnesses who were there do. Do you believe the witnesses at the wtc who heard bombs? Then why don't you believe the witnesses at the pentagon?

Why does the turbine found match one from the engine on a Global Hawk, but not one from a 757?

Because it matches a 757 not a global hawk. And what is the point of having a global hawk fly into the building when you have a 757 there according to your theory?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/enginerotor.html

How come the only plane parts are from a 757 and not a global hawk? Where are all these parts from a global hawk? You showed one piece that isnt. Where is the rest of the non existant global hawk?

...If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine...

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.html

[phatbob426]

No, the witnesses who were there do. Do you believe the witnesses at the wtc who heard bombs? Then why don't you believe the witnesses at the pentagon?

Because it matches a 757 not a global hawk. And what is the point of having a global hawk fly into the building when you have a 757 there according to your theory?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/enginerotor.html

How come the only plane parts are from a 757 and not a global hawk? Where are all these parts from a global hawk? You showed one piece that isnt. Where is the rest of the non existant global hawk?


http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.html

I have no answer to the "engine part" deal.  At one time I convinced myself it wasn't from a 757.  Then I was convinced it WAS from a 757.  Then I convinced myself it came from a Global Hawk.  Now a couple posters, yourself included, are pushing me back to the fence on that part.  I'm not personally an expert on those parts.  I can't say one way or the other.

I'm looking at the history of staged terror attacks.  Have you watched Terror Storm?  I know that our government has a vast history of going to great lengths to make something that didn't happen the way they say it did look like it happened.

As far as eyewitnesses go... I believe Samuel Danner(http://blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=477)

http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/WhiteCollarPeopleLooking.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/HumpbackWhaleOneEngine.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/JetHighAbove4Engines.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/LookedLikeUnderPerfectControlNoWindows.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/LightPolesBlownBackwards.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/RoughOnOneSideWithFibers.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/BitsOfAluminumAndOneEngine.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/TailConfigurationOf727.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/AgentsDidntSeemToCare.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/WeWereIntimidated.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/AgentsDidntSeemConcerned.mp3
http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/No757ItIsBigLie.mp3

[phatbob426]

Because it matches a 757 not a global hawk. And what is the point of having a global hawk fly into the building when you have a 757 there according to your theory?

The correct question is what is the point of having a 757 there if a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon.

The 757 serves TWO purposes. 

1. To provide a blip on a radar that would appear to ATC as Flight 77.

2. Psychological.  A witness sees the 757 and then sees the explosion.  Both planes are traveling in excess of 400 MPH.  It happens so fast that the witness believes the 757 hit the Pentagon, when in fact the 757 disappears over the top of the Pentagon.

[phatbob426]

Remember.  Flight 77 wasn't there.  They had to make it LOOK LIKE Flight 77 was there.  Flight 77 landed in Cleveland at 10:45AM.

[jimd3100]

Remember.  Flight 77 wasn't there.  They had to make it LOOK LIKE Flight 77 was there.  Flight 77 landed in Cleveland at 10:45AM.

no it didn't your source is the mayor and the local news both of who admitted almost immediately that they were wrong...not really much of a source is it?

[GiveMeLiberty]

We do not believe substantial proof explaining all facets of what happened that day exists.  We are exhausted in looking.  Someone like you comes around every other day swearing up and down that you have the proof that we're exhausted in looking for, yet you fail to produce it.  We've seen the pictures of the debris.  We don't need to go back and look at them for the hundredth time over again.

And if you've seen the photos then how do you explain all of the physical evidence shown?

You yourself agreed that you do not have all the answers, yet somehow you're convinced. 

Correction, I said that I dont have the answers that YOU want.

For someone so easily convinced yourself that a 757 did crash into the Pentagon, it's awfully hypocritical of you to knock us for believing one didn't.

I'm not so easily convinced. I have simply done my research. I knocked nobody, but I did say that some will deny at all costs.

How about this... Why wasn't there a serial number on the flight recorder box that was later produced?  Why is the timestamp on the video footage released 09-12-01?  Wouldn't you think that a security camera monitoring one of the top secured facilities in the world would have the correct date on the surveillance camera?

Well, like I said, I don't have the answers that YOU want.

P.S.  I do not believe holograms were used.   

Yeah, you only believe in a dual plane super-scenario that involves a global hawk crashing while a 757 flies over the Pentagon. For that, they should have used holograms because the witnesses didn't see anything like that and you have nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to base your theory upon.

[phatbob426]

no it didnt your source is the mayor and the local news both of who admitted almost immediatly that they were wrong...not really much of a source is it?

Two things.

1.  That mayor is a crook.

2.  The mass media is controlled by our government. (I'm sure there were death threats involved in the coverup)
------
Did you read my post earlier about how Flight 77 showed back up on radar after it had allegedly crashed into the Pentagon?
http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Flight_77_FC_screenshots.htm

[Protean]

The correct question is what is the point of having a 757 there if a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon.

The 757 serves TWO purposes. 

1. To provide a blip on a radar that would appear to ATC as Flight 77.

2. Psychological.  A witness sees the 757 and then sees the explosion.  Both planes are traveling in excess of 400 MPH.  It happens so fast that the witness believes the 757 hit the Pentagon, when in fact the 757 disappears over the top of the Pentagon.

Yes, I think you are on to something here. The fly-over scenario to distract the eyewitnesses from the actual vehicle/missile/global hawk/whatever-it-was which delivered the payload and impact to the Pentagon. Who knows? But I think it's safe to bet: those that perpetrated the attack LOVE to watch us try and figure it out.
 

[jimd3100]

The correct question is what is the point of having a 757 there if a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon.

No, it's not. Global hawks were not being "hijacked" and flown into buildings on 9/11 passenger jets were.

The 757 serves TWO purposes.  

1. To provide a blip on a radar that would appear to ATC as Flight 77.

And no one would notice a global hawk?

2. Psychological.  A witness sees the 757 and then sees the explosion.  Both planes are traveling in excess of 400 MPH.  It happens so fast that the witness believes the 757 hit the Pentagon, when in fact the 757 disappears over the top of the Pentagon.

Maybe you should sit back and think about that some more. If the plane flew over the building the people in front of the building would think WTF! That plane just bombed the pentagon. It would be above it. The people on the side would get a nice view of a plane flying over the pentagon. The pentagon is in a populated area, and 9/11 on a tuesday morning was as usual lots people. This would have been seen and is just stupid for the perps to take a risk like that. Especially when you just said the plane was right there on top of the building! There is no point --just ram it in the building. And thats exactly what the people there said happened. What is the point of making up these fairy tails that no one witnessed? What is the point of helping Rumsfeld and Stubblebine?

[GiveMeLiberty]

Remember.  Flight 77 wasn't there.  They had to make it LOOK LIKE Flight 77 was there.  Flight 77 landed in Cleveland at 10:45AM.

Changing your story already? That's quite a 180 from what you stated here:

Nice try... but EVERY eyewitness, watch PentaCon, stated that the 757 flew NORTH of the citgo. The angle shown in your diagram shows the path of the craft that hit the Pentagon, which flew south of the citgo.

EDIT: nevermind, I see you made a distinction between flight 77 and a 757. What's the point?

[phatbob426]

Changing your story already? That's quite a 180 from what you stated here:

EDIT: nevermind, I see you made a distinction between flight 77 and a 757. What's the point?

The point is.. They put enough evidence out there so that enough people like you will say that people like me are crazy so that the real truth never comes out.  See... It's working out perfectly.  You're convinced without even questioning why they won't release the tapes.

In actuality, the section that was struck happened to have been recently renovated for terrorist attacks.  You're telling me that there were only two crappy tapes with false timestamps on them?  I say Bull shiit

[Protean]

I think another point and way to look at the Pentagon attack is---

Why would they (being, whoever really did it, not the amateurs with box cutters) not want to use a large passenger jet? I think the answer is precision. What does the WTC and the Pentagon have in common? Was not the Pentagon, in that particular part of the building that was blown up, undergoing a re-construction? I believe that was mentioned in the latest Loose Change movie. As to the WTC, it was a money suck and needed massive upgrading for IT technology, including removing all that asbestos in the interstitial levels--so they really wanted to demolish it to save money in the long run.

(Light bulb goes on)

Construction demolition projects require precision. Don't want to blow up anything--that you don't want to blow up--just what needs to be removed. Hence a missile or smaller aircraft would be less messy and far more efficient in an operation like this. Less is more folks.
But--hey, just an idea...
 

[GiveMeLiberty]

The point is.. They put enough evidence out there so that enough people like you will say that people like me are crazy so that the real truth never comes out.  See... It's working out perfectly.  You're convinced without even questioning why they won't release the tapes.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I have questioned why they won't release the tapes, and if you read above in this thread, you will see where I mentioned that they should release all the tapes. But again, I don't have the answer that YOU want. Let's just say that I think they've held on to the tapes so they could inject false theories like the flyover and Global Hawk into the truth movement.

[jimd3100]

The point is.. They put enough evidence out there so that enough people like you will say that people like me are crazy so that the real truth never comes out.  

Dude wake up! You are the one being played like a fiddle. Guess who started that Missile hit the pentagon theory? It was Rumsfeld..............Ask yourself why he would do that?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg116070#msg116070


And why do you think MR Super Spook came out of the woodwork to help with the No planners (and that's what you are--no planers)at the pentagon a few years later?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2822.msg60287#msg60287

Well I'll tell you why. WTC 7 shows demolition at the wtc. And Flt 77 hitting the pentagon proves manipulation of the airplanes by the perps. With Hani Hanjour
 we can easily prove couldn't fly a cessna let alone a 757  into the pentagon proves the planes were controlled by others. You think they want to show you what a wonderfull pilot Hani was? That's the official story you know? No, they would rather you scream that there was no plane there! And you make fun of the no planners? Stop allowing yourself to be manipulated. Stop helping the perps and listen to the regular people who were there, and at the wtc!

[Aaron]

What about the light poles??

I doubt pretty much a global hawk could take 5 hits from lightpoles...

[phatbob426]

I think another point and way to look at the Pentagon attack is---

Why would they (being, whoever really did it, not the amateurs with box cutters) not want to use a large passenger jet? I think the answer is precision. What does the WTC and the Pentagon have in common? Was not the Pentagon, in that particular part of the building that was blown up, undergoing a re-construction? I believe that was mentioned in the latest Loose Change movie. As to the WTC, it was a money suck and needed massive upgrading for IT technology, including removing all that asbestos in the interstitial levels--so they really wanted to demolish it to save money in the long run.

(Light bulb goes on)

Construction demolition projects require precision. Don't want to blow up anything--that you don't want to blow up--just what needs to be removed. Hence a missile or smaller aircraft would be less messy and far more efficient in an operation like this. Less is more folks.
But--hey, just an idea...
 

That's a good point.

I was thinking earlier though that flying a remote controlled airplane into the Pentagon is probably alot easier than one that has to be piloted.  I'm guessing that hovering just over the ground at over 400 MPH without wiping out all the way into the side of the Pentagon is a really difficult thing to do.  However, with an unmanned Global Hawk, you just key in the coordinates and BOOM!

[70983]

i still think the lightpoles give the whole thing away

[phatbob426]

i still think the lightpoles give the whole thing away

The poles weren't bent as if they'd been struck...  They just popped out of the ground.  I mean... This guy, Samuel Danner suggests there were charges placed at the foot of the poles because of the way they flew.  Remember how people said they smelled cordite?

http://erichufschmid.net/Sam/LightPolesBlownBackwards.mp3

[jimd3100]

Remember how people said they smelled cordite?

You need to contact this guys doctor and tell him there was no jet fuel at the pentagon it was cordite.

The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.

http://www.aog.usma.edu/Class/1961/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

I would ignore these other accounts too...probably working with the old cab driver and involved in the plot no doubt.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/fires.html

[phatbob426]

You need to contact this guys doctor and tell him there was no jet fuel at the pentagon it was cordite.

The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.

http://www.aog.usma.edu/Class/1961/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

I guess a Global Hawk doesn't run off of Jet Fuel...   

[jimd3100]

I guess a Global Hawk doesn't run off of Jet Fuel...   

I guess a global hawk is made from 757 parts.

[phatbob426]

You need to contact this guys doctor and tell him there was no jet fuel at the pentagon it was cordite.

The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.

http://www.aog.usma.edu/Class/1961/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

I would ignore these other accounts too...probably working with the old cab driver and involved in the plot no doubt.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/fires.html

The smell of cordite could have very well been from charges placed at the foot of the light poles.  

Had a 757 in excess of 400 MPH hit the light poles as you suggest, the wings would have sustained significant damage and evidence of that damage would have been found all about the field.
----

As far as the eyewitness accounts go... Several types of planes were mentioned, different color schemes, wheels up, wheels down, steep dive, level flight, cartwheeling, hitting the helicopter pad and much more. There are even accounts of people seeing the faces of the passengers and one where they saw it hit a helicopter on the pad. At a speed of 506 feet per second very few people had a chance to see the plane up close for more than a fraction of a second.

[phatbob426]

I guess a global hawk is made from 757 parts.

You refuse to believe that our government would plant 757 parts about the scene of the crash?

Another question....

What're these guys carrying?