Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack


  • Please log in to reply
2521 replies to this topic

#1    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:17 AM

Topic transferred from this thread

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

The  white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely  due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in  front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in  that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line  along with the fuselage lower down.



It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After  reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems  they would not show the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the  Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have  captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the  question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but  rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

Well,  you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as  to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of,  the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way  that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed  there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone  Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you  may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite  some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be  found here:
http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

Edited by aquatus1, 05 October 2011 - 12:26 PM.


#2    Mario Lemieux

Mario Lemieux

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 213 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:59 PM

You're wrong. The end.

Pittsburgh Steelers 2008-2009 Super Bowl Champions
Pittsburgh Penguins 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Champions

#3    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 11 September 2011 - 10:19 PM

View PostScott G, on 11 September 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Topic transferred from this thread



Well,  you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as  to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of,  the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way  that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed  there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone  Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you  may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite  some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be  found here:
http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

What about the debris? Rolls Royce engine parts, 757 wheels, sheets of aircraft skin with the AAL colors? There is plenty of photographic evidence of 757 debris at the site.


#4    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 September 2011 - 11:11 PM

What amazes me the most about this, is that they manage to hit the pentagon directly at 500mph flying a couple of feet off the ground without them hitting lawn before hand.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#5    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,907 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 11 September 2011 - 11:34 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 September 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

What amazes me the most about this, is that they manage to hit the pentagon directly at 500mph flying a couple of feet off the ground without them hitting lawn before hand.
That is assuming of course that is exactly what the intention was.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#6    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:15 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 11 September 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

What about the debris? Rolls Royce engine parts, 757 wheels, sheets of aircraft skin with the AAL colors? There is plenty of photographic evidence of 757 debris at the site.

I've seen an engine that was allegedly found at the scene. It wasn't a Rolls Royce engine, according to certified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

Transferred from the Architects and Engineers thread...

View PostRafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

You do realize those are controlled tests in laboratory conditions using highly specialized equipment.

Not  really the type of video gear you'd have up to cover a parking  lot.  Also remember that this was before widespread use of high  definition cameras - most video surveillance cameras aren't even high  definition now.

There were a lot of video feeds that  were confiscated. Take a look at this video to hear of a few video camera feeds that were taken away from the public eye:
http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

The pentagon itself certainly had more then the video  feed of the parking lot. I've seen pictures of the video cameras that  the pentagon had on its outside walls at the time, but they've never  been mentioned. Within minutes, the FBI confiscated many others. To this  day, they refuse to part with some of them; the ones they have finally  given back don't show a plane; One thing I wonder is if some of the ones  that show nothing -should- show something if the plane actually took  the official path. In any case, I've seen enough evidence that there's no doubt in my mind that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 12:17 PM.


#7    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,807 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:23 PM

View PostScott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

I've seen an engine that was allegedly found at the scene. It wasn't a Rolls Royce engine, according to certified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

I think that was [according to the official explanation] the APU.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#8    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM

View Postfrenat, on 11 September 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

That is assuming of course that is exactly what the intention was.

Whether it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of detail as to why. But even assuming that it somehow -did- happen; there's a short video included below explains 2 things that certainly weren't reported. They state that top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground, according to ASCE. Also, according to the official story, the Boeing as flying at 530 MPH, 2 feet above the ground, immediately after clearing the I-395. Just one problem; there were no reports of jet blast or wake turbulence.

The video in question:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 12:33 PM.


#9    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:31 PM

View Post747400, on 12 September 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

I think that was [according to the official explanation] the APU.

That's not what I've heard, but if you have evidence that this was the claim, it would be appreciated if you could present this as well. My understanding is that no Rolls Royce engines were found, and even the one that was allegedly found may not have actually been found there; the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene; and the picture I saw of it doesn't really show much background.


#10    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,807 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:35 PM

View PostScott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

That's not what I've heard, but if you have evidence that this was the claim, it would be appreciated if you could present this as well. My understanding is that no Rolls Royce engines were found, and even the one that was allegedly found may not have actually been found there; the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene; and the picture I saw of it doesn't really show much background.
That's always the thing, isn't it. So no evidence will ever satisfy, on that basis, will it, if the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#11    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:31 PM

View Post747400, on 12 September 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

That's always the thing, isn't it. So no evidence will ever satisfy, on that basis, will it, if the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene.

The issue of where the picture was taken is only one of the many issues. There is also, as I've stated, the issue of what part it was claimed to have been; I saw it was claimed to have been an engine, not an APU. And it certainly wasn't any Rolls Royce engine an expert was aware of; certainly not one from a 757.

And this, as the saying goes, is just the tip of the iceberg. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has dedicated a considerable amount of time to exposing the evidence against the official story regarding the pentagon attack. Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short, have dedicated themselves solely to this endeavour. But if seeing the many excellent documentaries they've done on the subject is too much for you, atleast familiarize yourself with the arguments contained within this 5 1/2 minute video:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 01:31 PM.


#12    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,907 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:08 PM

View PostScott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Whether it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of detail as to why.
No it is not.  I don't care what they have to say.  Can YOU explain why in your own words?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#13    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,560 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:58 PM

Let's not resort to using ad hom remarks in this discussion. Please stick to the factual information and how it does or does not support various claims.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#14    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:18 PM

View PostLilly, on 12 September 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Let's not resort to using ad hom remarks in this discussion. Please stick to the factual information and how it does or does not support various claims.

Thanks :-)


#15    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:22 PM

View Postfrenat, on 12 September 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Whether  it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for  a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of  detail as to why. But even assuming that it somehow -did- happen;  there's a short video included below explains 2 things that certainly  weren't reported. They state that top of the fuselage of the aircraft  was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground, according to  ASCE. Also, according to the official story, the Boeing as flying at 530  MPH, 2 feet above the ground, immediately after clearing the I-395.  Just one problem; there were no reports of jet blast or wake turbulence.

The video in question:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

No it is not.  I don't care what they have to say.  Can YOU explain why in your own words?

Why do some people insist that truthers have to reinvent the wheel every time? It just gets tedious. If you don't care what seasoned pilots have to say on the matter, I doubt you'll be interested in hearing what I have to say on it. Someone in this very forum actually just put up a good explanation. If you can't even read what someone else put up in this very forum, I think you're just not interested in learning about views that don't support what you already believe. Here's the link:
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4052122

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 06:23 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users