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 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

You mean the "being designed to withstand a 707" aspect? That was explained by MID a few pages back, I think. It's all about energy and velocity.

How did a 2 guys who used a flight sim to train and then some lesosns in a mslal aircraft manage to plow such a huge plane into a building? Joh lear said he would have needed a few runs to hit one of those towers. He's flown planes all his life, including the sr-72 and all the spyplanes, secret planes and jets etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bee, what do you know about the holes?

I wrote a post in another thread about it........#137 here...

http://www.unexplain...c=219063&st=135

and this was the link I used...(about half way down....with a couple of photos)

http://www.911review.../spencer05.html

Quote.....Behind the outer ring of Wedge 1, the Pentagon suffered very distinctive damage. As the first of the photographs below shows, fire spread extensively along the outer ring of the wedge and along the entire length of the main dividing sections running crossways. The fire was clearly less extensive in the rings contained within this area. Aerial photographs showing the inner wall of C Ring however do reveal three interesting exit holes, as shown in the second of the photographs below and in closer detail in the two that follow. The exit hole I have labelled number 1 is widely documented and discussed. Some have suggested that it was caused by the plane's port engine propelling itself like a missile through the building, though it seems too large to have been caused by the engine that was found. Others have argued that it is far more reminiscent of an exit hole caused by a real missile. The other two exit holes have been less widely considered. They are probably blasted out doorways rather than exit holes as such but the significant damage and scorching suggest something hot and explosive happened here, a part of the building otherwise not greatly affected by fire. ...(end quote)

there was another mention in a link that I used in my post 140 (from above UM link)

http://www.frederick...?storyID=130443

3. According to a graphic provided by the Pentagon and published by The Washington Post shortly after 9/11, there were three very similar "exit" holes in the C Ring. These three holes can be seen in an aerial photograph of the C Ring available on the Internet.

hope that helps....there might be more but that's all I've got on the '3 exit holes' at the mo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did a 2 guys who used a flight sim to train and then some lesosns in a mslal aircraft manage to plow such a huge plane into a building? Joh lear said he would have needed a few runs to hit one of those towers. He's flown planes all his life, including the sr-72 and all the spyplanes, secret planes and jets etc.

he also believes that there are alien bases on the moon, doesn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With radar, yes; CCTV wouldn't be much use, though, would it.

And incidentally, regarding the "surely the defences would be on red alert" argument; I don't think there actually were any defences; not in the sense of missiles or anything like that, they relied on fighters from the nearest Air Force base.

Soooooooooooo you're saying you don't think the mighty US had in situ defence for it's Defence Headquarters........oooooooooooh kaaaaaaaaay :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How did a 2 guys who used a flight sim to train and then some lesosns in a mslal aircraft manage to plow such a huge plane into a building? Joh lear said he would have needed a few runs to hit one of those towers. He's flown planes all his life, including the sr-72 and all the spyplanes, secret planes and jets etc.

The terrorist pilot who flew American 77 into the Pentagon had actual flying experience and the maneuver wasn't as difficult as you might think.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where the tables turn you see and I know the facts... Drugs don't destroy a person, mentla illness or guilt does. The drugs or alcohal just don't help in those cases. I know people who have been taking coke for 10+ years, probably longer than Charlie Sheen and you wouldn't even think it to look at them.

I'm alright with agreeing to disagree on this point.

Because Martin Sheen didn't make a public video asking the about it. Also Obama never replied to Charlie Sheen... So how was he given any answers?

As for Charlie's public video, are you really so surprised that Obama didn't respond to it?

If he had responded to it, what kind of precedent would that set? Public videos about peoples' pet topics would come out of the woodwork.

As for answers, there are plenty of answers for CT claims. You don't need Obama or any other president to deliver the answers, they are readily available for anyone willing to put in a few hours of honest investigation online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a post in another thread about it........#137 here...

http://www.unexplain...c=219063&st=135

Not sure if you're just providing info or if this what you actually believe, bee. If it is what you actually believe, I guess I'm confused because there's references by you I believe that maybe a truck with explosives was driven up to the Pentagon, and also a diagram showing how three missles from three different trajectories travelled roughly through the same outer hole in the Pentagon to cause three different exit holes. I'm having trouble seeing how this all coalesces, if it's even supposed to I may be misreading you, into a coherent timeline of events. Sorry if I'm jumping in the middle, if you've explained that in an earlier post, just let me know and I'll look for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if you're just providing info or if this what you actually believe, bee. If it is what you actually believe, I guess I'm confused because there's references by you I believe that maybe a truck with explosives was driven up to the Pentagon, and also a diagram showing how three missles from three different trajectories travelled roughly through the same outer hole in the Pentagon to cause three different exit holes. I'm having trouble seeing how this all coalesces, if it's even supposed to I may be misreading you, into a coherent timeline of events. Sorry if I'm jumping in the middle, if you've explained that in an earlier post, just let me know and I'll look for myself.

lol....it's what I said....and up to now it is still the best explanation I can come up with that fits in with the evidence,

In my post I linked to I was speculating that if a truck with explosives made a dash for the Pentagon building then

(3...?) small (ish) missiles could have been fired at it by Ground Defence..... in the vacinity. Although it could have been just one missile...

if the other two holes were something else.

Or maybe a suicide bomber...or two..., on foot....made a dash for the building and were fired upon...? dunno....

Just trying to figure it all out to my own satisfaction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol....it's what I said....and up to now it is still the best explanation I can come up with that fits in with the evidence,

In my post I linked to I was speculating that if a truck with explosives made a dash for the Pentagon building then

(3...?) small (ish) missiles could have been fired at it by Ground Defence..... in the vacinity. Although it could have been just one missile...

if the other two holes were something else.

Or maybe a suicide bomber...or two..., on foot....made a dash for the building and were fired upon...? dunno....

Just trying to figure it all out to my own satisfaction...

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole, no signs of wings, the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

Edited by lliqerty
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole, no signs of wings, the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

That's right... it's what he labels number one exit hole.

Perhaps the Official Flight path had to fit in with the damage done to the generator? Which would be number one exit hole...?

edit to add link with the pics....for anyone else wondering what the hell we're talking about... :D

http://www.911review.../spencer05.html

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole,...

What small entrance hole?

b06-DSC_0461-1.JPG

no signs of wings,

Actually, I have already posted a photo as they recovered the wing flaps.

...

the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

On the contrary, it does. I have also posted where passenger and crew remains of American 77 were recovered within the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

oh nooooo...Skyeagle's just got up after a Saturday morning lie in...... :lol:

only teasing Sky.... ;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole, no signs of wings, the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

I'm not sure why so many people still appear to believe that there was only one relatively small entrance hole. May I suggest giving this link a good look-see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What small entrance hole?

b06-DSC_0461-1.JPG

Actually, I have already posted a photo as they recovered the wing flaps.

On the contrary, it does. I have also posted where passenger and crew remains of American 77 were recovered within the Pentagon.

The stuff you are saying has already been proven to be wrong.

I'm not sure why so many people still appear to believe that there was only one relatively small entrance hole. May I suggest giving this link a good look-see?

Because we have eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what size hole you call that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right... it's what he labels number one exit hole.

Perhaps the Official Flight path had to fit in with the damage done to the generator? Which would be number one exit hole...?

edit to add link with the pics....for anyone else wondering what the hell we're talking about... :D

http://www.911review.../spencer05.html

.

Why is it that people smelled cordite (explosives) but no jet fuel?

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/fnp_display.htm?storyID=130443

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have eyes.

Then I suggest you use them to review this link. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see a plane in the footage.

As for the supposed 'other footage', you might want to give this a gander.

(Edit: by the way, 911datasets.org is back up. It was briefly down last December, but not for long.)

Wow, those earlier reposts of yours from the post above are excellent, especially when you do the compare between those two frames of the Pentagon video. I hadn't really paid that much attention to this video and had always thought that this video just showed an indiscernable white blob. But I think my perspective has been entirely off on where the camera position is and what I was expecting to see. Am I correct that it appears that you can see the entire plane in one of the shots? There are a few features I see: you can see a purplish horizontal line running down a wider lighter horizontal line which is the entire fuselage with the AA red, white and blue stripes, what looks like the vertical stabilizer, and then a whiter portion that seems to continue of the right side of the frame which I assume is smoke or something; the point being, it appears that the entire plane is in the shot and part of it is not off frame? I've been totally thrown-off, I was expecting the plane to be much larger in perspective relative to the pentagon, but I think it's because in the video I can't tell exactly how far down the pentagon outer wall the plane hits, there's just an explosion. But from the camera's perpective because of the distance the plane looks smaller, and I also realize thinking about it that I don't know how much taller the Pentagon is relative to the height of AA77. And the plane I think didn't hit at a straight perpendicular and was coming in at an angle. Regardless, good post and great evidence and analysis, my perspective was way off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what size hole you call that?

Maybe you can correct me on the exact size of the hole. I estimate it to be about 15 m wide. If you look at it from straight above it looks like a square. The flight path is said to be 45 degree angle.

If the plane is as wide as a knife blade, it can go the diagonal, to get out on the other side. If it had any width at all (I believe it does) then it would need to fly an S in order to fit throught there.

post-130317-0-28314800-1341679652_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I suggest you use them to review this link. :yes:

Yeah, shaterred windows and fires inside but the wall is still standing, duh. Are you saying it flew through the windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stuff you are saying has already been proven to be wrong.

What stuff in particular? We have eyewitness accounts, data, and other evidence placing American 77 at the Pentagon and nowhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole, no signs of wings, the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

That entrace hole corresponds to the mass of the aircraft piercing the building.

There is evidence of wing contact all along the structure to either side of the main fuselage hole. Understand that the wings are the most flexible, lowest mass items on the airplane, and they were impacting an area of the building supported by 6 re-enforced columns on either side of the main hole area. The evidence of wing damage is there, but thwey were largely shredded when they hit. There is fuel in them, of course, but they in and of themselves are not structured with pressure hulls and tubular bodies like the main section is.

The wings and things were in small pieces all over the place.

What does it mean, "It's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the official flight approach"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, shaterred windows and fires inside but the wall is still standing, duh. Are you saying it flew through the windows?

Willful ignorance is a wonder to behold sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm alright with agreeing to disagree on this point.

Well fair enough but what I'm saying comes from experience.

As for Charlie's public video, are you really so surprised that Obama didn't respond to it?

If he had responded to it, what kind of precedent would that set? Public videos about peoples' pet topics would come out of the woodwork.

As for answers, there are plenty of answers for CT claims. You don't need Obama or any other president to deliver the answers, they are readily available for anyone willing to put in a few hours of honest investigation online.

Are you joking? The Goverment should ask ANY question ANY person asks. The goverment is supposed to be there FOR the people, the people are NOT there for a goverment.

People should not fear the Goverment, the Goverment should fear it's people. <--- This right here is the problem with the whole world right now.

He should have publicaly responded to him.

Edited by Coffey
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government is a necessary evil, according to Jefferson and others. Right they are.

And so it is that we live under the rule of law, or so we're told, and it is the rule of law that constrains the necessary evil government.

Good post Coffey.

1 person likes this

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.