The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[Scott G]

Aircraft Debris

There is more than appears at first glance.

Please see my post here: http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3380928

I'll do better. I'll quote it and respond.

...The strongest conclusions are that a plane impacted... the Pentagon... There were aircraft in all four cases. There was no tv-fakery, no doctored security camera, no holograms, no flyover.

I've seen no evidence of holograms. I have seen evidence of doctored security cameras. Some tv-fakery as well, but not in regards to the pentagon attack, so will save that for another day. And I've once again re-affirmed that the pentaplane flyover theory is the most plausible one.

I entertained the possibility that the limited plane wreckage could have been planted at the Pentagon

That's good to know.

but there is enough physical, eyewitness and recorded evidence to oppose this (not to mention the logic involved).

Clearly we disagree on all counts here.

I think that there is enough wreckage considering that the aircraft flew into a building reinforced to withstand bomb-blasts.

So the plane just vaporized? Seriously, where are the wings, the tail section? And why was only one engine part found, and that engine part found to be too small for a 757? Feel free to read up on the engine questions here:

http://911review.com.../turbofans.html

There were pieces of the fuselage (not just the big piece in the foreground but the smaller pieces scattered over the lawn in the background)…

That 'big piece" is perhaps a meter, a meter and a half at best; the rest appear to be even smaller. Here's an example of just how intact a plane can be after a crash:

Here are many more plane crashes that, while not as intact, have still left much more parts then what was seen at the pentagon:

http://www.google.ca...iw=1276&bih=615

Now compare this with the pentagon crash:

Then there's the amazing pentalawn. Some alleged eye witnesses believed that the plane crashed into the pentagon lawn before hitting the pentagon. This link goes into detail regarding that:

http://911research.w.../penta_lawn.htm

There was a section of the landing gear…

...

There was more mangled wreckage (I guess this is what piecies of a plane looks like after crashing into a building and suffering fire damage)…

I really don't think we should reasonably expect to see anymore than this.

Perish the thought . As to these last 2 photos, anyone can take pictures of objects, be they plane parts or what not. Seriously, I'm sure a mangled piece of metal can be many things, including things that were at the pentagon to begin with. Anyway, we have some pictures in dark rooms and they say they came from the pentagon. Just like they allegedly collected DNA samples from the pentagon of virtually everyone who was allegedly aboard Flight 77. So most of the plane vaporized.. but the DNA from virtually all the alleged passengers was intact? Now, what if they just -said- they collected the DNA from the pentagon, and in fact collected it somewhere else? In case someone doesn't know, DNA is a lot more sensitive to heat then airplane parts made of metal.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Scott G

[Q24]

You have no conclusive evidence that a plane hit the building.

If radar data, physical damage, debris, security footage and eyewitness accounts are not sufficient for you… I’m struggling to see that anything could convince you.

What would you qualify as conclusive evidence?

[bubs49]

Perish the thought . As to these last 2 photos, anyone can take pictures of objects, be they plane parts or what not. Seriously, I'm sure a mangled piece of metal can be many things, including things that were at the pentagon to begin with. Anyway, we have some pictures in dark rooms and they say they came from the pentagon. Just like they allegedly collected DNA samples from the pentagon of virtually everyone who was allegedly aboard Flight 77. So most of the plane vaporized.. but the DNA from virtually all the alleged passengers was intact? Now, what if they just -said- they collected the DNA from the pentagon, and in fact collected it somewhere else? In case someone doesn't know, DNA is a lot more sensitive to heat then airplane parts made of metal.

Scott,

I will play the part of the devil's advovate here.

The DNA objection does not apply to Q24. He assumes the plane was real and really impacted the Pentagon's facade, but was a remotely guided drone (if I get him right), so real plane but without passengers.

Am I right, Q24?

[Q24]

Scott,

I will play the part of the devil's advovate here.

The DNA objection does not apply to Q24. He assumes the plane was real and really impacted the Pentagon's facade, but was a remotely guided drone (if I get him right), so real plane but without passengers.

Am I right, Q24?

Yes - there is an information gap which allows for that option.

I do wonder what Scott is talking about half the time.

First he says: -

“the pentalawn should be strewn with 757 debris. Only it isn't.”

Then in his next post admits there was debris on the ‘pentalawn’: -

“That 'big piece" is perhaps a meter, a meter and a half at best; the rest appear to be even smaller.”

It’s like he can see the debris, but is in denial of it.

And how anyone could ‘plant’ that volume of debris both inside and outside the Pentagon I don’t know.

Then he’s linking pictures of planes that didn’t crash into buildings expecting them to be relevant to a plane that did crash into a building.

What’s that all about?

[skyeagle409]

I

That 'big piece" is perhaps a meter, a meter and a half at best; the rest appear to be even smaller. Here's an example of just how intact a plane can be after a crash:

Here are many more plane crashes that, while not as intact, have still left much more parts then what was seen at the pentagon:

http://www.google.ca...iw=1276&bih=615

That is indicative of a plane overrunning a runway, not crashing from the sky. That can be determined by the way the fuselage split just forward of the wing.

Edited September 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yes, on that, atleast, those who staged this evidence did fairly well, the amazing pentalawn ™ aside.

Not staged at all. The folks at the Pentagon don't like people throwing trash around their building so in that regard, we can rule out a staged event.

[mrbusdriver]

[/url]

That is indicative of a plane overrunning a runway, not crashing from the sky. That can be determined by the way the fuselage split just forward of the wing.

I find it astounding how one would present this photo as some sort of comparison with a 500mph impact into a heavy concrete building...simply in-credible. "This crash has a tail, wings, fuselage...where's all that at the Pentagon, or Shanksville...??"

[bubs49]

That is indicative of a plane overrunning a runway, not crashing from the sky.

Did Flight 77 crash from the sky?

[mrbusdriver]

Did Flight 77 crash from the sky?

Well, it sure as hell wasn't doing a "fast taxi" into the building!!

Yeah, for all intents and purposes, it came from the (low) sky into the building...at about 500mph.

[skyeagle409]

Did Flight 77 crash from the sky?

More like slamming into the Pentagon.

[skyeagle409]

I find it astounding how one would present this photo as some sort of comparison with a 500mph impact into a heavy concrete building...simply in-credible. "This crash has a tail, wings, fuselage...where's all that at the Pentagon, or Shanksville...??"

Simply amazing when I saw that photo! Here is another example.

[booNyzarC]

The thing that strikes me about all of the images of plane crashes which show larger sections of the planes still fully intact is that... the pilots in those situations were probably trying to not die... They were trying to get the plane back under control and land as best as possible. Is that really a motivating factor for someone intent on slamming a plane into a building as a weapon?

Does anyone else see this distinction?

[mrbusdriver]

Simply amazing when I saw that photo! Here is another example.

Boy, that "little" 737 sure looks big when taken out of the "airport ramp" context. Quite a shot there!

[aquatus1]

Indeed, and it is obviously lost, as it is trying to make a left when the sign clearly indicates that the airport is to the right.

[Scott G]

Indeed, and it is obviously lost, as it is trying to make a left when the sign clearly indicates that the airport is to the right.

Laugh :-)

[Space Commander Travis]

I'll do better. I'll quote it and respond.

That 'big piece" is perhaps a meter, a meter and a half at best; the rest appear to be even smaller. Here's an example of just how intact a plane can be after a crash:

That seems a bit disingenuous. Did that crash at 400+ mph? I very much doubt it. That looks like a relatively low Speed takeoff/landing Accident.

[Scott G]

In this news report on THE DAY the last 3 minutes or so are especially relevant to the Pentagon Story.

No mention of a plane from people being evacuated...but eyewitnesses reported an explosion and

a military? helicopter circling the building just before the explosion.

In the chaos the Official Story hadn't yet been set in stone.

Very interesting video. I wonder if that helicopter launched a missile at the pentagon (assuming the following video is what actually occurred and not made up by someone) and the E4B in the sky filmed the following video (assuming it's real and not made up):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D1PVqXbo7U

I got that video from this page, that has a fair amount of information regarding the pentagon attack:

Flight 77 and the Pentagon Crash - What Really Happened Here?

Another thing, perhaps in support of the flyover theory; a reporter at Reagan National "heard something" before seeing the plume of smoke at the pentagon; could that have been the plane flyover? So many questions...

It is also important to the Inside Job conspiracy supporters (Q24... ) that a plane hit

because otherwise the conspiracy starts to fall apart?

Which conspiracy theory? The official story one or an alternate one? In any case, I definitely believe that the official story conspiracy theory would fall apart if more people realized that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon :-). I'm really beginning to discount the idea that a plane hit it at all; this still leaves open the possibility of some type of missile as the plane that approached the pentagon (but flew over it instead of crashed into it). This reminds me that people saw a flash just before the explosion; could this have been the missile launching? I'm thinking it may not have been able to have been launched from the plane; I think it may have been hard to conceal on it. But what if it were launched from the ground? If that were the case, it would make a lot of sense why it was so "low and level", apparently just 2 feet from the ground. Or could a helicopter have been the one to launch the missile? Or maybe the videos of objects hitting the pentagon are simply fakes, and explosives alone caused all the damage. As I've said before, the only thing I'm sure about is that a 757 or any other airplane around its size couldn't have hit the pentagon; and since most people described the plane as around that size, it strongly suggests that that plane flew over the pentagon instead of into it. But questions definitely remain in my mind as to what, exactly, caused all the damage at the pentagon.

(I think that flight 77 was taken by remote control out to sea and 'brought down'....and that the

Plane at the Pentagon is a mock up to cover this fact).......damage limitation re Public Relations

and for political reasons.

From what I heard, Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11. But I've heard the idea that atleast one of the planes may have been shot down at sea; interestingly, I believe atleast one plane -was- shot down at sea that day, supposedly just as part of an exercise. I don't have that link on me right now though. I know that you don't believe that elements within the U.S. government would have killed people in order to starts wars, but I hope you don't discount this possibility entirely. Have you seen the pilot episode of X-Files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen"? It was aired 6 months before 9/11. In the video, one of the Twin Towers is targetted; but not by arab terrorists. Instead, it was targetted by people within the U.S. who would profit greatly from the increase in arms sales after such a profound terrorist attack. The plane was hijacked by remote control. Here's what I consider to be the most relevant part of it:

Killtown, a 9/11 researcher, has gone into great detail regarding this episode:

http://killtown.911r...lonegunmen.html

Edited September 23, 2011 by Scott G

[bee]

Very interesting video. I wonder if that helicopter launched a missile at the pentagon (assuming the following video is what actually occurred and not made up by someone) and the E4B in the sky filmed the following video (assuming it's real and not made up):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D1PVqXbo7U

Hiya...yes I thought it was interesting.

Re. the video you have put above. I have a couple of problems with it.

The mechanically created voice says that the 'missile' footage was released just before the 10th anniversary

of 9/11 by a whistleblower...BUT....it was uploaded by a YouTube user way before that in 2006.

In 'your' vid the voice says that the flash is seen in the line of sight of the impact zone, and then

goes in for close up shots of the supposed missile strike, which if you look at the 2006 one the flash

isn't in the line of sight of the impact zone. So I can only presume that who ever went in for the close ups

on 'your' vid....knew what they were doing and was indulging in deliberate subterfuge.

I believe that the whole of the 9/11 attacks and aftermath is drowning in deliberate subterfuge....

Heres the 2006 one for comparison re. the flash.

although the person who did the 2006 one is trying to make out it's a plane....

edit to add....... the flash MIGHT have some significance though?????? On it's own but not

with the so called plane/missile bit added???? God, this all gets complicated.....

which it's designed to do....muddying the waters and confusing everything...

more to come.....I'm splitting up my reply for clarity and the space for vids in posts...

Edited September 23, 2011 by bee

[bee]

Which conspiracy theory? The official story one or an alternate one? In any case, I definitely believe that the official story conspiracy theory would fall apart if more people realized that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon :-).

The conspiracy regarding 'Inside Job' would fall apart without an airliner hitting the Pentagon, IMO.

It would just make a ridiculously complicated alleged plot, even more ridiculously complicated.

As you know I don't think it was an Inside Job per se....but if it was...surely hitting WTC 1 + 2 would have

been quite sufficient.

If 'something' was 'done' to give an excuse for going to war...it didn't have to be so insanely complicated.

I'm really beginning to discount the idea that a plane hit it at all; this still leaves open the possibility of some type of missile as the plane that approached the pentagon (but flew over it instead of crashed into it). This reminds me that people saw a flash just before the explosion; could this have been the missile launching? I'm thinking it may not have been able to have been launched from the plane; I think it may have been hard to conceal on it. [But what if it were launched from the ground? If that were the case, it would make a lot of sense why it was so "low and level", apparently just 2 feet from the ground. Or could a helicopter have been the one to launch the missile? Or maybe the videos of objects hitting the pentagon are simply fakes, and explosives alone caused all the damage. As I've said before, the only thing I'm sure about is that a 757 or any other airplane around its size couldn't have hit the pentagon; and since most people described the plane as around that size, it strongly suggests that that plane flew over the pentagon instead of into it. But questions definitely remain in my mind as to what, exactly, caused all the damage at the pentagon.

bolded....I've been thinking that. Although I am sticking with my overall theory of the day's events...

it can survive a bit of tweaking here and there.....

Perhaps a missile was used that came from a launcher somewhere around the pentagon area?

There would surely be things like that to protect the Defence Headquarters...

And the helicopter mentioned in the live CNN report was there to oversee it all and/or to create distraction?

Or perhaps it was bombs that made the holes in the different layers of the building.

That would actually be the simplest solution...maybe

From what I heard, Flight 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11. But I've heard the idea that atleast one of the planes may have been shot down at sea; interestingly, I believe atleast one plane -was- shot down at sea that day, supposedly just as part of an exercise. I don't have that link on me right now though.

As I was formulating my 'theory' I came across a couple of things about that myself (the sea) but I don't have the links either.

I know that you don't believe that elements within the U.S. government would have killed people in order to starts wars, but I hope you don't discount this possibility entirely.

I don't believe that elements of the US government would have killed all those civilians in one of it's own

major cities. In fact I think that terrorists causing all that loss of life and damage was, if anything,

an embarassment. A blow to national pride that they could achieve such a thing...?

I don't discount that possibility on a smaller scale, entirely. For example the Pearl Harbour conspiracy stuff.

But THAT didn't involve civilians, like 9/11 did and although part of the US, it wasn't on the mainland.

cheers

[mrbusdriver]

If the "recently received video" showed an airline hitting the Pentagon, the truthers would be calling it a fake. But since it shows a "missile", it's automatically swollowed by the crowd as authentic.

Where's the skepticism here?

And cruise missiles are not used for air defense...they are long range delivery systems.

[skyeagle409]

Very interesting video. I wonder if that helicopter launched a missile at the pentagon (assuming the following video is what actually occurred and not made up by someone) and the E4B in the sky filmed the following video (assuming it's real and not made up):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D1PVqXbo7U

I got that video from this page, that has a fair amount of information regarding the pentagon attack:

Flight 77 and the Pentagon Crash - What Really Happened Here?

I don't think that you were aware that the videos of the cruise missiles are years older than the 911 attacks. Additionally, you can paint a Cessna 150 in the markings of American Airlines, but beneath it all, it is still a Cessna 150, not a B-757.

There was no cruise missile attack on the Pentagon and the turbine wheel in the video is from a Rolls-Royce engine.

And this photo is from the combustion chamber of a Rolls-Royce jet engine used on the American airlines B-757, which is obviously much too large to have come from a cruise missile as is the case with the turbine wheel in the above photo.

My link

So once again, B-757 engine components fround within the wreckage of the Pentagon.

[skyeagle409]

I know that you don't believe that elements within the U.S. government would have killed people in order to starts wars, but I hope you don't discount this possibility entirely.

Why not? The US government didn't fly aircraft into the capitol building before bombing Iraq during the two Gulf Wars. Wars can be started by simple rumors.

[Q24]

If the "recently received video" showed an airline hitting the Pentagon, the truthers would be calling it a fake. But since it shows a "missile", it's automatically swollowed by the crowd as authentic.

Where's the skepticism here?

Please don’t assume bee and Scott of all people are representative of the truth movement. There are prominent researchers and 9/11 truth websites which have gone to great length to refute all form of ‘no plane’ theories. It is just unfortunate there are also those too eager to swallow anything that confirms their preset view - it happens on both sides of the debate in equal measure.

The video is an obvious fake - the object doesn’t even impact at the correct location.

Why not? The US government didn't fly aircraft into the capitol building before bombing Iraq during the two Gulf Wars. Wars can be started by simple rumors.

Wars are easy to begin, not so much to sustain.

The first Gulf War was triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and resulted in a short six week engagement.

In order to sustain the more recent U.S. war against Iraq and a troop deployment that would last for years in effecting successful regime change, a greater public and international backing was required. This support could not have been achieved without 9/11.

Whilst WMDs were at the forefront of discussion, the implicit threat behind that, as repeatedly sold by the U.S. administration, was that Iraq would provide such weapons to Al Qaeda terrorists who would use them for their own purposes; the foreboding of another 9/11.

And let’s not forget the U.S. near decade-long war in Afghanistan also for which 9/11 was the pretext.

[skyeagle409]

Please don't assume bee and Scott of all people are representative of the truth movement. There are prominent researchers and 9/11 truth websites which have gone to great length to refute all form of 'no plane' theories. It is just unfortunate there are also those too eager to swallow anything that confirms their preset view - it happens on both sides of the debate in equal measure.

The video is an obvious fake - the object doesn't even impact at the correct location.

Wars are easy to begin, not so much to sustain.

The first Gulf War was triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and resulted in a short six week engagement.

In order to sustain the more recent U.S. war against Iraq and a troop deployment that would last for years in effecting successful regime change, a greater public and international backing was required. This support could not have been achieved without 9/11.

Whilst WMDs were at the forefront of discussion, the implicit threat behind that, as repeatedly sold by the U.S. administration, was that Iraq would provide such weapons to Al Qaeda terrorists who would use them for their own purposes; the foreboding of another 9/11.

And let's not forget the U.S. near decade-long war in Afghanistan also for which 9/11 was the pretext.

I can remember a US attack on Afghanistan before 911. Former president, Bill Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on a cave complex and in Sudan.

Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)

The August 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan (codenamed Operation Infinite Reach by the United States) were American cruise missile strikes on terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on August 20, 1998. The attack was in retaliation for the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people (including 12 Americans) and injured 5,000 others

My link

Edited September 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

I can remember a US attack on Afghanistan before 911. Former president, Bill Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on a cave complex and in Sudan.

Indeed he did.

And…

Are you equating isolated strikes to a decade long occupation of Afghanistan??

I do hope not.

Not right after we have all been deriding Scott for making a nonsensical comparison.

Let’s at least apply the same standards to discussion across the board.