911 Pentagon Video Footage

[Q24]

I have not had the chance to go through this entire 170 page thread but I read the last few pages and I can see people are going off topic for whatever reason. We are basing opinions on footage taken and released by what the government wants the public to see not what actually happened. There were many other camera angles and video evidence that could have been brought forth to clear up a lot of the conspiracy surrounding this attack but the FBI and other government agencies refuse to release this evidence to the public because frankly there was no plane crash.

I agree on most that you say until the last statement: “frankly there was no plane crash”. Whilst accepting the false flag nature of 9/11, the research I have carried out into the video footage, radar data, physical damage and eyewitness evidence all indicate that a plane impacted the Pentagon, and makes any 'flyover' or 'non-impact' theory non-viable. As to identity of the plane, that would be another question.

Donald Rumsfeld announced that on September 10th the pentagon was robbed of 2.3 trillion dollars. On September 11th the Pentagon was attacked right where all the computers that housed the evidence of theft were destroyed in an attempt to cover-up any trace of where the money went.

That is not true - the Pentagon was not “robbed” and there was no “theft”, and Rumsfeld announced no such thing. Please bear in mind that I believe Rumsfeld is a lying Neocon war criminal right up with his longterm associate Cheney, I wouldn’t loosely ‘defend’ him here without good cause. The fact is that the $2.3 trillion could not be tracked - the result of an outdated and monolithic government system which I can well believe. It is a situation that existed long before 9/11 or even the Bush administration. Also please note that majority of the untracked $2.3 trillion had been reconciled by February 2002. The article here contains a lot of this information, and again please note that I believe 911myths to generally be a pile of crap - I wouldn’t link it here without first vetting the information for factuality.

I think, if you want to read anything into the timing of Rumsfeld's announcement, that it might be indicative of 'burying bad news' under cover of the event he knew was imminent.

Anyone who still thinks that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is either blind or working for the government as part of the cover-up. The only proof you need that it was something other than a 757 that crashed into the building is there is no large parts of the plane whatsoever and the hole that was made would not be consistent with a large plane crashing into the building it would be much bigger. There is no tail section, no large engine's showing, just a turbine of some other type of plane that does not even belong to a 757 engine. Jet fuel would not have completely destroyed any of these parts nor would have the impact itself.

I used to err that way too until further evidence came to light - for a long time the Pentagon attack lacked in readily available evidence more so than other areas of 9/11 and is a subject to beware. Whilst limited, the photographic evidence that exists does show a considerable amount of debris including fuselage, engine, landing gear, amongst more at the site. I have never seen conclusive evidence that these parts came from anything other than a 757. And of course when a relatively lightweight aircraft directly impacts a steel-reinforced concrete wall ('bomb-proof') at high-speed there will only be small pieces that remain.

Also out of the 19 hi-jackers that were named there are still many alive who were not even in America at the time of the attack. A passport made out of paper that is linked to these hi-jackers can survive a crash but a HUGE jet and a HUGE tail and airplane body made out of METAL just disintegrated?

It is possible this is the result of mistaken or stolen identities (which the hijackers were known to use). Though good point about the passport, especially if you are referring to that of hijacker al Suqami at the WTC, miraculously discovered on the street and handed to authorities before either tower collapsed - planted evidence if ever there was and as an intelligence official said, left deliberately as part of a trail for the FBI to chase.

Oh I can also come up with video evidence here you go watch it and then you can say it is just all full of crap like usual but we know better!

I like Jesse Ventura and he appears genuine, though he apparently does not have all the information to hand on the Pentagon event and mixes with bad company in the video, like a certain pilot who has been discredited even within large parts of the truth movement.

I suggest keep up the research.

Edit: Perhaps starting with the ten points I noted here which demonstrate the impact.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

Donald Rumsfeld announced that on September 10th the pentagon was robbed of 2.3 trillion dollars.

Donald Rumsfeld made no such claim.

As for a plane hitting the Pentagon it wasn't a 757. Anyone who still thinks that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon is either blind or working for the government as part of the cover-up.

That is false because B-757 wreckage has been identified.

[MID]

Well, in the truthers' case, grey matter comes to mind and what has already been established is a lack thereof.

Concisely put!

[with bells on]

i havnt read this thread, only the OP..

it was clearly a missile.. and this was what brought the whole 911 scam down for me.. what a disgrace to do that to your own people..

superpower no longer.. karma is a b****..

[skyeagle409]

i havnt read this thread, only the OP..

it was clearly a missile.. and this was what brought the whole 911 scam down for me.. what a disgrace to do that to your own people..

Evidence please!

Looking at photos of the wreckage inside, and outside the Pentagon, I do not see a single piece of a missile, but I do see wreckage of a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines. A cruise missile is not capable of inflicting the kind of damage seen at the Pentagon.

[turbonium]

This is actually you?

Honestly, your tactics take a grand direction here...one you'd better never use with me...but, you know that already, speaking to someone with evidence about how not to answer the way you continually do???

Of course, we all know how utterly ridiculous your positions are. Somehow, you live under the easily debunked impression that you have something, when you've never exhibited one proof to your contentions. Not one!

Wow. That's about all that needs be said!

No, MID. You (and/or skyeagle) still need to address my questions..

- Are you aware that airport security videos are stamped with date/time and camera id numbers??

- Please tell me how you know when this video was shot?

So....

I guess not.

So tell me how you know when this video was shot

[with bells on]

Evidence please!

Looking at photos of the wreckage inside, and outside the Pentagon, I do not see a single piece of a missile, but I do see wreckage of a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines. A cruise missile is not capable of inflicting the kind of damage seen at the Pentagon.

im not having a go at you.. but

we must of seen diff material?..

cause the workers in the pentagon that survived and walked out through the hole of the missile, said that there was no plane.. i would take their word over whatever rubbish the govt will plant and tell you.. havnt you watched the docos?? i have never seen or heard that they found any plane material at the pentagon.. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=aXUo0Ody-aQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaXUo0Ody-aQ

its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack, but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.. this is the thing with this world we live in.. people are blind.. they just believe whatever the govt tell them.. i believed it all too.. it was awful.. but the facts are the facts.. and the outcome is that it was a false flag.. sorry.. the truth is ugly..

[with bells on]

the doco to watch is 911 between the lies, but they keep taking it down off youtube, cause anyone that watches that can see the truth.. its all the news footage, that was filmed on the day and the two days after.. and its never been shown again..it has the firemen all saying they could see and hear bombs going off in the towers etc etc etc..

the truth will be revealed.. americans will revolt..

[booNyzarC]

So many uninformed people. It's downright depressing.

Please do some research people... please...

[skyeagle409]

im not having a go at you.. but

we must of seen diff material?..

This is wreckage from a B-757.

...cause the workers in the pentagon that survived and walked out through the hole of the missile, said that there was no plane..

First of all, there would be nothing left of a cruise missile after making a hole this size in E-Ring;

To make a hole this size in the C-Ring wall.

i would take their word over whatever rubbish the govt will plant and tell you.. havnt you watched the docos?? i have never seen or heard that they found any plane material at the pentagon.. http://m.youtube.com...h?v=aXUo0Ody-aQ

You have a choice to take their word, but what I am saying is that I have more experience and technical expertise in aircraft structures than most people at the Pentagon to know what I am talking about. After all, Raytheon Aerospace and the USAF sent me to Pensacola, Florida to develop a new technical manual for the engine inlet which is used on the Air Force's C-5 transport. In fact, I was the person who invented a new type of pressurization flapper valve for the Air Force's C-5B transports, and that in addition to developing components and equipment for the Air Force and defense contractors, not to mention positions as supervisor/inspector while serving in the Air Force and with defense contractors.

Hot section from an engine of American 77, which is definitely not from a cruise missile.

its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack,...

I know that it was a terrorist attack and nothing to do with a government conspiracy.

...but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.

Well, we have demolition experts from Protec Services, who were at the scene and confirming that explosives were not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Civil Engineers have confirmed that fire, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

In addition, the Air Line Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association do not agree with the 9/11 Truthers either. You need to stay away from those 9/11 conspiracy websites and just the other day, I posted a hoaxed video of WTC7, along with the admission of the person who hoaxed the video and some of those 9/11 Truthers actually used that hoaxed video in their arguments not knowing the video was hoaxed, which goes to show why it is not prudent to used those 9/11 CT websites as references.

Edited October 27, 2012 by skyeagle409

[with bells on]

where are the marks from the plane wings??

thats a small amount of plane wreckage??

where are the massive fires from all the jet fuel?

so this is how i see it, a plane came over the pentagon and as it came head on it with it fired some sort of missile ( i am no expert on missiles) from the plane and flew over the pentagon through the smoke of the hit.. greatest magician show ever created..

as for the towers? they were designed to be hit by planes and survive.. what about that other plane that went down in the field.. there was NO trace of a plane found??

come on..

im happy we have diff views on this.. its ok..

lets just agree to disagree on this one..

peace..

Edited October 27, 2012 by with bells on

[Czero 101]

I have not had the chance to go through this entire 170 page thread but

* everything else snipped for brevity *

Regarding the snipped content...

* facepalm *

Cz

[Czero 101]

where are the marks from the plane wings??

Here's a post I made about 3 1/2 years ago regarding the damage:

The images I will be presenting all come from the following site:

USINFO Photo Gallery: The September 11 Attack on the Pentagon

This site was previously posted by Merril in post #284. It addresses the misconceptions presented in the "Loose Change" videos, specifically that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an aircraft.

I'm assuming that you are referring to this image.

While this is the same image that you refer to from post #304, it is smaller and does not have the same indicators on it. The arrow shown points to the mark you are referring to

What you are seeing here is a low concrete wall which surrounds a ventilation exhaust structure situated between the helipad an the Pentagon proper. That wall is roughly only a foot high. The arrow in the picture above indicates the point on that wall where the bottom of the left engine pod struck it, removing a roughly semi-circular portion of the wall. Please note that it was only the lower portion of the left engine pod that hit that low wall, not the entire wing.

With regards to the "cyclone fence", this picture gives a bit better perspective:

The portion of the fence seen at the very left of the above image is the same portion of the fencing seen in the image Kenny has referred to. That fence was surrounding a large, temporary power generator on the lawn of the Pentagon. This is the large, dark object that makes up most of the foreground in the image I have provided above.

This generator looks to be approximately the same size as a standard shipping container. These containers are 20 or 40 feet long by 8 feet wide by 8 1/2 feet high. It is hard to tell the length of the generator, but the width and height appear to be that of a standardized shipping container. The trailer that the generator is mounted on is roughly 3 feet high (from the ground to the bottom of the generator / container). So this gives the generator a total height of roughly 11 1/2 feet. Again, it is hard to be certain of the exact dimensions of the generator / container so it could even be what's called a "high-cube" container. A "high-cube" container is 9 1/2 feet tall and is called "high-cube" because it allows for more cubic footage of cargo to be carried. This would give the generator a total height of 12 1/2 feet. Having worked in the trucking / container industry as recently as a year ago, I am quite familiar with these containers, their dimensions and the trailers used to move them. While I can't be 100% positive due to the damage to the generator, I would say that I am 95% positive that my comparison between the generator and the shipping containers I have referenced is accurate.

Examining the image above you can see that the generator has obviously been hit by something, in this case, the right wing of flight 77. The caption for this image states that an eyewitness saw the wingtip of the aircraft hit the generator, but in my opinion, it had to have been closer in towards the right engine pod since the gap in the fencing surrounding the generator was made by the right engine pod. This also explains why the corner of the "cyclone fence" is still standing as seen in both my picture and Kenny's. More on that to follow.

The artist's depiction below clearly shows that the generator is roughly in-line with the right engine pod and the low wall surrounding the ventilation structure is roughly in-line with the left engine pod.

The image below, taken before the side of the building collapsed, shows the generator / container still on fire in the lower right portion of the image:

Looking at the generator / container and comparing it to the remaining fencing, it appears as though the fence is only 8-feet high, not 10-feet as claimed by Kenny in later comments (see below).

It just so happens that this image is also one used by the makers of "Loose Change" to put forward the idea that there was only a 16-foot hole created in the front of the Pentagon where flight 77 impacted. What hey DON'T tell you is that the hole they presume is the only damage (indicated by the arrow just to the left of centre) is actually on the second floor and that most of the impact damage was to the ground floor. Conveniently for them, the ground floor damage is hidden in this image by the foam / water being sprayed by the fire truck in the lower left foreground.

cz, that mark on that ledge is perfectly horizonal. For the wing to have made such a straight mark, the plane would have to have been heeled to the left and the left wing or engine would have caught the fence, the right wing would have been pointing up at a high angle. The only way the left wing could have made that mark would be if it had a gull wing and a little more altitude. Your picture shows the wing in an even lower position than I thought it was. As close as that fence is, there's no way it would have missed being hit by the left wing or the left engine. It was too close for the wing to go over it. If, as you say, the left wing was lower than the right one, it would have centered that fence. That looks like a 10ft fence. KennyB

As stated above, the "mark on the ledge" is only the roundish gouge taken out of a small portion of the wall. The rest of the wall is perfectly horizontal because that is the top of the one-foot wall. The aircraft was only "heeled over" by a small amount, probably less than 10 degrees. The image below shows the approximate attitude of the aircraft at impact:

As you can see, the right wing is raised slightly and the left wing is virtually parallel with the ground. This would have the effect of putting the left engine pod less than a foot above ground, which is consistent with the damage shown to the low wall, and putting the right engine roughly 5 to 6 feet above ground, which again is consistent with the damage seen to the generator / container and the "cyclone fence" surrounding it. The reason the corner portion of the fence is still standing is that it was in the "empty space" between the right engine pod and the aircraft's fuselage. Also, fence corner posts are, generally speaking, sturdier posts, are placed deeper into the ground and usually have concrete poured into the hole surrounding the post to make it stronger and more stable.

The image also shows the approximate extent of the damage caused to the Pentagon. You can clearly see that considerably more damage was done to the ground floor by the wings, engines and other, heavier parts of the aircraft.

The damage can be seen more clearly in this artist's depiction:

Compare that to the following images that show the damage to the ground floor:

Damage from the right wing extends up to the second floor slab, but since the wing did not penetrate the floor slab, the damage above there is somewhat limited when compared with the area below the floor slab. Here's a closer look at the second floor slab:

And the same area pictured after the collapse:

Note the scrape marks above the second floor. These are most likely the results of parts of the aircraft (horizontal and vertical stabilizers, parts of the wing) hitting and disintegrating against the facing wall. Notice also that there is significantly less damage above the second floor slab and that the damage tapers off laterally after column 19 (indicated). This is due to the weaker outer portion of the wing breaking up upon impact with the floor slab. Damage gets more significant toward column 18 and 17. The wing's structure is more substantial and stronger the closer it gets to the fuselage (so that it can support the engines and the fuselage) and would remain intact longer, therefore doing more damage before breaking up completely.

This is an image of the damage done to the ground floor by the left wing. Since it was virtually horizontal at the time of impact, most of the damage is limited (vertically) to the ground floor, but as can be seen by the indicated column numbers, extends quite far laterally, as far as column 8. The expansion joint at column 11 indicated is where the facade of the Pentagon initially sagged immediately after impact, and then collapsed approximately 20 minutes later.

thats a small amount of plane wreckage??

Just exactly how much wreckage do you expect to find when a 200,000 pound object slams into a reinforced concrete building at over 500mph?

where are the massive fires from all the jet fuel?

A large portion of it was in the massive fireball at the time of impact, or did you miss that? There is also a great deal of visual evidence for fires after the impact.

so this is how i see it, a plane came over the pentagon and as it came head on it with it fired some sort of missile ( i am no expert on missiles) from the plane and flew over the pentagon through the smoke of the hit.. greatest magician show ever created..

Except there is exactly zero eyewitness testimony of an aircraft overflying the Pentagon. There were hundreds of people on the highways around the Pentagon, other aircraft in the area, and while the video footage from the Doubletree hotel doesn't show the impact or the Pentagon itself, an overflying aircraft would most likely have been seen.

as for the towers? they were designed to be hit by planes and survive..

And oddly enough they did survive the impacts. Both of them survived the impacts.

The subsequent fires, however, are a completely different story, and one that was not taken into account when the towers were "designed to be hit by planes".

what about that other plane that went down in the field.. there was NO trace of a plane found??

Despite the fact that wreckage can clearly be seen in photos of the crash scene and the fact that 95% of the aircraft and remains of all passengers were recovered from Shanksville...?

come on..

Indeed...

im happy we have diff views on this.. its ok..

lets just agree to disagree on this one..

You'd have to present evidence first. So far all you have is a woefully uninformed and apparently biased opinion.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

where are the marks from the plane wings??

On the outer wall of the Pentagon.

thats a small amount of plane wreckage??

Not unusual in aircraft crashes.

where are the massive fires from all the jet fuel?

I am very sure that you can google and find photos of the massive fires at the Pentagon.

...so this is how i see it, a plane came over the pentagon and as it came head on it with it fired some sort of missile ( i am no expert on missiles) from the plane and flew over the pentagon through the smoke of the hit..

Eyewitnesses did not see a plane fire a missile nor fly over the Pentagon.

as for the towers? they were designed to be hit by planes and survive..

Apparently, fires weaken the steel structures and the rest became history.

...what about that other plane that went down in the field.. there was NO trace of a plane found??

Not true. Check it out.

United 93 Wreckage

[with bells on]

haha.. too funny.. this is one of those topics that is kind of pointless even debating.. at the end of the day, i guess we all see what we want.. and your evidence is giving me zero chance of that ever changing for me..

i cant find the photo i want.. its of the hole in the pentagon and how it was such a clean hit, that nothing is disturbed in the rest of the room.. which is proof no plane came through.. yes, not surprising its not easy to find online..

take care guys..

[beale947]

haha.. too funny.. this is one of those topics that is kind of pointless even debating.. at the end of the day, i guess we all see what we want.. and your evidence is giving me zero chance of that ever changing for me..

i cant find the photo i want.. its of the hole in the pentagon and how it was such a clean hit, that nothing is disturbed in the rest of the room.. which is proof no plane came through.. yes, not surprising its not easy to find online..

take care guys..

Blind leading the blind.

[turbonium]

And oddly enough they did survive the impacts. Both of them survived the impacts.

The subsequent fires, however, are a completely different story, and one that was not taken into account when the towers were "designed to be hit by planes".

The planes flew on liquified cheese (usually cheddar) back in those days, so fire "was not taken into account" in a plane impact

Or a bunch of complete morons designed it, not a clue that planes have fuel, and lots of it, or what can happen if it's under immense pressure - say, by impacting a steel tower...

You have a choice, No logic required.

[with bells on]

Blind leading the blind.

ignorance is bliss..

[MID]

ignorance is bliss..

And I am thinking (just briefly, as I've little time for this type of junk):

You must be very blissful?

Edited October 27, 2012 by MID

[MID]

haha.. too funny.. this is one of those topics that is kind of pointless even debating.. at the end of the day, i guess we all see what we want.. and your evidence is giving me zero chance of that ever changing for me..

i cant find the photo i want.. its of the hole in the pentagon and how it was such a clean hit, that nothing is disturbed in the rest of the room.. which is proof no plane came through.. yes, not surprising its not easy to find online..

take care guys..

Actually, those of us who actually know what we're seeing, and who aren't occupied by the CT mindset, and the total distrust of government, and the attendant theory-creating that results from that attitude (oh, and I must include the lack of engineering knowledge), aren't surprized at all at what we've seen, and at what's been concluded from the relatively clear evidence.

Just thought I'd make that clear to you. You take care too!

[MID]

cause the workers in the pentagon that survived and walked out through the hole of the missile, said that there was no plane.. i would take their word over whatever rubbish the govt will plant and tell you.. havnt you watched the docos?? i have never seen or heard that they found any plane material at the pentagon.. http://m.youtube.com...h?v=aXUo0Ody-aQ

its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack, but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.. this is the thing with this world we live in.. people are blind.. they just believe whatever the govt tell them.. i believed it all too.. it was awful.. but the facts are the facts.. and the outcome is that it was a false flag.. sorry.. the truth is ugly..

Nahhh. No debris at all.

It's getting even harder to locate debris at the Pentagon site...

Yes, there was no debris...other than the tons found and recovered. No bodies (perhaps you expect the graphic evidentiary photos posted here???)

I just remember all kinds of fire, all kinds of pieces of airplane, lots of burning stuff of varying types, and uh....lots of human parts and things I'd rather not have to see.

But I suppose there will always be that faction of people who will refuse to see the actuality, and will make up convenient fiction--to somehow make their minds clear and have some peace(???)

[MID]

The planes flew on liquified cheese (usually cheddar) back in those days, so fire "was not taken into account" in a plane impact

Or a bunch of complete morons designed it, not a clue that planes have fuel, and lots of it, or what can happen if it's under immense pressure - say, by impacting a steel tower...

You have a choice, No logic required.

And you have no choice.

Sleep is necessary. Get some.

Your post was truly "affected". Not really a post, but just some words.

Edited October 27, 2012 by MID

[turbonium]

And you have no choice.

Sleep is necessary. Get some.

Your post was truly "affected". Not really a post, but just some words.

You're correct - I was in a giddy state of mind, caused by a lack of sleep.

I'm now refreshed, and good to go!

It was meant to be a sarcastic post. I assumed you wouldn't take "liquified cheese" literally.

It appears to have gone right over your head. Anyway, I'll explain it in basic terms...

Czero claimed that the WTC towers were designed to withstand plane impacts (like on 9/11).., but they did not take fires into account.

(Sidenote: to make an outlandish claim is one thing, but to not show even a shred of proof for it....well, I felt that deserved the blatant sarcasm in return.

Do you accept this claim as true, like Czero does? If so, then please show me the proof.

I know that Leslie Robertson has said the towers were designed for withstanding a 707 plane impact, but I don't recall him making claims regarding the subsequent fires. And even if he did say it, there is no proof at all. On the contrary, it's in direct contradiction to others, who have stated that fires were taken into account.

John Skillings ...

""We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

So we have two claims that differ on one specific issue - the fires. Only one of these two claims can be true. So which one makes more sense to you? Not exactly a tough choice, is it? We know a plane has fuel. We know this fuel is highly combustible, flammable, as in 'fires'. We know a fuel tank is combustible, it explodes. And we know that explosions will...you guessed it...cause FIRES.

So, when they designed these buildings to withstand a plane impact - like on 9/11, for example - what would they possibly 'take into account'? You know.

Source of the archived page...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref3

[Czero 101]

Its interesting that you don't put nearly as much effort into researching YOUR OWN ludicrous claims, Turbs.... maybe you should look into that....

Cz

[skyeagle409]

Why doesn't it surprise me that 9/11 conspiracy folks continue to get taken to the cleaners over false and misleading information, hoaxed photos and videos. It has been more than 11 years since the 9/11 attacks and still no evidence of a government conspiracy in sight.

Edited October 28, 2012 by skyeagle409