Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Topic transferred from this thread

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong. The end.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.dailymotion.com/video/x19ta5_pentagon-strike_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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x19ta5

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.dailymotion.com/embed/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So what are your theories? Not other people's, not pilots, yours.

it's this insistence that "only we know the Truth" and that anyone who doesn't is just to lazy to find out for themselves what's so self-evident that so many people who call themselves "Truthers" seem to have that tends to put people's backs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are your theories? Not other people's, not pilots, yours.

I've already stated my belief: that there's no way that a 757 could have crashed into the pentagon. As to why, my reasoning for this is the same as the reasoning that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT have used. I've submitted links to their sites and even a link to someone in this very forum who's put up information that they have given out. If you've missed out on the links, I'll be happy to direct you to them.

it's this insistence that "only we know the Truth" and that anyone who doesn't is just too lazy to find out for themselves what's so self-evident that so many people who call themselves "Truthers" seem to have that tends to put people's backs up.

I agree with you to some extent; I myself was temporarily suspended from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, ostensibly because I lied. I hadn't lied, I'd just made the mistake that posts were deleted, when in fact a post was only partially deleted. And I was banned from CIT, without ever really being told why. This being said, there -is- something to be said for taking the time to look at information that someone you disagree with has provided you. Not doing so exemplifies the very same elitist attitude that you're attributing to truthers, with the difference that you won't even look at the arguments against your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, a modified predator drone hit the pentagon, there was 1 security footage and there is no Big plane there, its something small like missile or drone. And someone before stated there is really no big damage to anything... Everything was a global show which ran for 9-10 years... Then people started to ask questions on which US gov. replied with lies. So yes US gov. is spreading lies,its covering up alot of information,invading foreign lands,... And ask any non-american who is responsible for that tragedy, you will get very non-islamic answer... So until i see my proof of dead Bin Laden ( Which hardly exists ), or i get answer to " How can a person who can bearly speak english, fly a US airplane? ". So belive your gov. or belive facts..which were never answered...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So in other words you can't expain it in your own words? Linking to a post by Ove lowers your credibility quite a bit and it still didn't answer why it would be impossible for the plane to fly where it did. He posted about witness recollections of the flight path, not any supposed impossibility of flight.

Those seasoned pilots have gotten a lot wrong in the past. I've talked to others that say they're full of it. Please explain it in your own words and try not to assume what I'm interested in or not.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, a modified predator drone hit the pentagon, there was 1 security footage and there is no Big plane there, its something small like missile or drone.

Recently, I've been thinking that this may well have been the case. I lean more towards drone because the speed of the aircraft wasn't that fast according to a witness with significant expertise on the subject of aircraft speeds.

And someone before stated there is really no big damage to anything... Everything was a global show which ran for 9-10 years... Then people started to ask questions on which US gov. replied with lies. So yes US gov. is spreading lies,its covering up alot of information,invading foreign lands,... And ask any non-american who is responsible for that tragedy, you will get very non-islamic answer.

I wouldn't go that far. While it may be that many if not all U.S. countries believe the official story less than americans do, there is still a sizeable portion who do.

So until i see my proof of dead Bin Laden ( Which hardly exists ),

I think he is dead; the question is when he was killed. There were reports that he died ages ago, and I'm more inclined to believe that, based in part on the fact that he was dying -before- 9/11; a CIA agent boasted of meeting him in a hospital in Egypt.

or i get answer to " How can a person who can bearly speak english, fly a US airplane? ".

If the only issue was the alleged pilots' mastery of the english language, that'd be one thing. However, the fact of the matter is that, one suspect pilot license notwithstanding, there is no evidence that any of them could fly a Cesna, let alone a 757.

So belive your gov. or believe facts..which were never answered...

It's certainly true that there are many things that remain unexplained even to veteran researchers concerning 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transferred from this thread...

"Pilots for 9-11 Truth?"

Cut me (a pilot with engineering background) a break. What sort of clowns are going to state that the maneuvers of AA77 in the vicinity of the Pentagon were dangerous and too difficult, when they weren't either and aren't the mark of anyone highly skilled?

You say you're a pilot with engineering background. I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't have any evidence against it either, so I'll let you off on that one. But your disparagement of known pilots discredits you. Why don't you take a look at some of their -work- before insulting them? Here's a show that the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy theory aired:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it seems to me that people are so quick to accept the 9/11 commission report, accept what the government tells them, but when things start to turn up, people come forward, documents are found, they laugh at you, say your a nutcase and are unpatriotic! Well in terms of the pentagon, there was no, I repeat, NO PLANE that hit the pentagon on 9/11. A witness who worked in the pentagon can back that up. This person remembered hearing an explosion and when she came to, was escorted out of the building. she past right by the giant HOLE and stated, there was no evidence of a plane, she thought a bomb went off!! she was then questioned and then TOLD a plane hit the pentagon. this person was also on jesse ventura's show. Call Jesse a loon all u want, but he gets some good hard evidence on his shows. People refuse to come forward due to being scared or "silenced". just like this whole deal with the towers falling due to fire alone. There were witnesses whom seconds before the plane(s) struck, heard explosions on the bottom floors! they were detained outside and questioned behind closed doors. people really need to wake up and grow a brain!!!! The government has successfully completed false flag operations before, and will continue to do so!

Edited by Silverbane81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it seems to me that people are so quick to accept the 9/11 commission report, accept what the government tells them, but when things start to turn up, people come forward, documents are found, they laugh at you, say your a nutcase and are unpatriotic! Well in terms of the pentagon, there was no, I repeat, NO PLANE that hit the pentagon on 9/11. A witness who worked in the pentagon can back that up. This person remembered hearing an explosion and when she came to, was escorted out of the building. she past right by the giant HOLE and stated, there was no evidence of a plane, she thought a bomb went off!! she was then questioned and then TOLD a plane hit the pentagon. this person was also on jesse ventura's show. Call Jesse a loon all u want, but he gets some good hard evidence on his shows. People refuse to come forward due to being scared or "silenced". just like this whole deal with the towers falling due to fire alone. There were witnesses whom seconds before the plane(s) struck, heard explosions on the bottom floors! they were detained outside and questioned behind closed doors. people really need to wake up and grow a brain!!!! The government has successfully completed false flag operations before, and will continue to do so!

I agree with you for the most part Silver. The only thing I take exception with is the idea that some people haven't 'grown a brain', laugh :-p. I know several people who still believe the official story. I think that, for the most part, the reason for this is that they just aren't interested in looking at evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I think they simply feel that it's a waste of time since they believe they already know what happened. It's sad, but I feel there's simply not much you can do in these cases. I can get along with them in other aspects, but we simply can't talk about 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott G, what sort of warhead was fitted to this drone...one which created a huge fuel-fed fireball, while also punching through several rings of the Pentagon, and all the contents as well?

And what of the witness accounts of a jetliner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott G, what sort of warhead was fitted to this drone...one which created a huge fuel-fed fireball, while also punching through several rings of the Pentagon, and all the contents as well?

First of all, I never said I knew that a warhead pierced the pentagon. While it's been brought up as a possibility in various places, I remain of the mind that the damage may have been entirely caused by explosives. What evidence do you have that the fireball was jet fuel fed? There may have been other fuel, from the trailer near the pentagon.

And what of the witness accounts of a jetliner?

CIT has done an extensive accounting of the aircraft witness accounts. You may want to see some of their documentaries on the subject:

http://thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

Of particular note would be this one:

http://thepentacon.c...sideflyover.htm

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.