What hit the Pentagon?

[CosmicStaR]

Whatever it was..definitely wasn't what they said it was..

[Czero 101]

Do you see a plane in that building?

No, because it disintegrated upon impact, like one would expect an airplane to when it hits a building made of reinforced concrete.

Do you see anything that even looks like part of a plane?

Yes.

• parts of an aircraft's landing gear, positively identified as from the same type of aircraft that was flight 77
  
• parts of an aircraft's fuselage, some still showing American Airlines' colours
  
• parts of an aircraft's engines, the same type known to have been installed on the same type of aircraft that was flight 77
  

Especially a plane the size of a 747?

No, but I wouldn't expect to find parts of a 747 on the scene of a crashed 757.

Cz

Edited August 21, 2009 by Czero 101

[Mario Lemieux]

Whatever it was..definitely wasn't what they said it was..

I accepted it was a plane untill about 3 minutes ago when I watched that video. It's not a plane, and it's certainly not a 757.

The FBI never released the video footage from three sources filming the event, but the tower video's are released. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Edited August 21, 2009 by Mario Lemieux

[Mario Lemieux]

No, because it disintegrated upon impact, like one would expect an airplane to when it hits a building made of reinforced concrete.

An airplane that big just..disintegrated? :lol:

Yes.

[*]parts of an aircraft's landing gear, positively identified as from the same type of aircraft that was flight 77

By who? The government? The same government that withheld three video tapes of the crash? If it was what they say it was, why not release the video? They have video of the WTC being hit.

[*]parts of an aircraft's fuselage, some still showing American Airlines' colours

Link?

[*]parts of an aircraft's engines, the same type known to have been installed on the same type of aircraft that was flight 77

Link? Remember, it's the government saying all this, not exactly a source that always tells the truth.

No, but I wouldn't expect to find parts of a 747 on the scene of a crashed 757.

Typo. You got me.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Mario Lemieux

[Czero 101]

I accepted it was a plane untill about 3 minutes ago when I watched that video.

2 comments:

- which video? there have been a few throughout this thread

- if all it took was one video on the internet to completely, absolutely change your mind, then your mind hadn't been - and probably still isn't - absolutely, completely made up

It's not a plane, and it's certainly not a 757.

If not a 757, then what was it that did damage one would expect from a 757 and left parts of a 757 behind

The FBI never released the video footage from three sources filming the event, but the tower video's are released.

You mean the 3 videos that did not show that part of that Pentagon because their camera's were either not pointed at the Pentagon or their view of the Pentagon was blocked by things like other buildings or trees?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Indeed...

Cz

[Mario Lemieux]

2 comments:

- which video? there have been a few throughout this thread

The first post. It certainly made me think about what really happened.

- if all it took was one video on the internet to completely, absolutely change your mind, then your mind hadn't been - and probably still isn't - absolutely, completely made up

Not at all. But now there is that doubt it was a plane, I'm not sure what to think. All we have is the government telling us it was a plane and that they claim that 757 parts were found. I wouldn't exactly take everything they say for granted at this point.

If not a 757, then what was it that did damage one would expect from a 757 and left parts of a 757 behind

What evidence do we have it was a 757 besides the fact that the government told us it was? If it was, why not release one of the tapes? I live in DC and went by the Pentagon after the damage and saw it first hand, I questioned to myself how a huge airplane did the damage that was visible, but excepted it because I was pretty young at the time.

You mean the 3 videos that did not show that part of that Pentagon because their camera's were either not pointed at the Pentagon or their view of the Pentagon was blocked by things like other buildings or trees?

That's why I'm asking why not release one of the three tapes, either from a hotel, gas station, or the 395 traffic camera to show us what hit it? What're they hiding keeping those videos secret? If it is a 757, which they claim it to be, why not release the tapes?

You've failed to address the video issue...

Edited August 21, 2009 by Mario Lemieux

[Czero 101]

An airplane that big just..disintegrated? :lol:

Yes. What exactly do you expect to happen when an aircraft made almost entirely of lightweight aluminum and other composite materials traveling at roughly 500 mph impacts a building made of reinforced concrete and comes to a full stop in a few hundred feet (more or less)?

By who? The government?

The government.

The aircraft manufacturer.

The accident investigators.

Just about anyone who can look at the picture of the landing gear found at the Pentagon, compare it a picture of the landing gear of a 757 and see that they are identical.

The same government that withheld three video tapes of the crash? If it was what they say it was, why not release the video?

See previous post.

They have video of the WTC being hit.

Yeah, well that's what happens when several hundred news cameras and several thousand personal video cameras get pointed at a pair of buildings after one of the two gets hit by an airplane.

Link?

Link?

Read the thread. There are many pictures of the wreckage posted here.

Remember, it's the government saying all this, not exactly a source that always tells the truth.

Does that mean that it ALWAYS lies then? I'm willing to bet that you've probably told at least one lie (of any degree) kin your lifetime. Does that mean that I should take everything you say as a lie?

Typo. You got me.

Figured it was a typo, but wanted to cover all the bases. Some people in this thread have shown themselves to have not taken much time to study the actual details of this event.

Cz

[Mario Lemieux]

Yes. What exactly do you expect to happen when an aircraft made almost entirely of lightweight aluminum and other composite materials traveling at roughly 500 mph impacts a building made of reinforced concrete and comes to a full stop in a few hundred feet (more or less)?

I expect to see something that looks remotely like a part of a plane somewhere. Even if it's a wheel on the ground.

The government.

The aircraft manufacturer.

The accident investigators.

Just about anyone who can look at the picture of the landing gear found at the Pentagon, compare it a picture of the landing gear of a 757 and see that they are identical.

I'm not saying it wasn't the 757, because it probably was. There's just some doubt there. Who's to say they're not lying? A cover-up perhaps? Unlikely, but possible.

Yeah, well that's what happens when several hundred news cameras and several thousand personal video cameras get pointed at a pair of buildings after one of the two gets hit by an airplane.

True.

Does that mean that it ALWAYS lies then? I'm willing to bet that you've probably told at least one lie (of any degree) kin your lifetime. Does that mean that I should take everything you say as a lie?

Not always. But the fact they won't let us see the crash is questionable, especially with all the crazy conspiracy theories out there about it, they can put them to rest.

Figured it was a typo, but wanted to cover all the bases. Some people in this thread have shown themselves to have not taken much time to study the actual details of this event.

I see, good point.

[Czero 101]

The first post. It certainly made me think about what really happened.

Thinking is good.

Deciding based only on one internet video is bad.

Not at all. But now there is that doubt it was a plane, I'm not sure what to think. All we have is the government telling us it was a plane and that they claim that 757 parts were found. I wouldn't exactly take everything they say for granted at this point.

If it wasn't a plane, then what was it?

Flight 77 definitely took off that morning.

It was definitely a Boeing 757-223.

It definitely had passengers on board. Those passengers have never been seen again. Well.. not alive anyway. The plane has not shown up at any airport after it took off.

Flight 757 was definitely tracked on radar flying back to DC.

Many, many witnesses saw an aircraft that fits the description of an American Airlines 757 flying towards the Pentagon.

Parts of a 757 were definitely identified at the Pentagon.

So if it wasn't a 757, what was it?

What evidence do we have it was a 757 besides the fact that the government told us it was? If it was, why not release one of the tapes? I live in DC and went by the Pentagon after the damage and saw it first hand, I questioned to myself how a huge airplane did the damage that was visible, but excepted it because I was pretty young at the time.

Eyewitness reports from people near the crash site.

Expert testimony from the NTSB crash investigation team.

Pieces of aircraft on the scene, some positively identified as coming from a Boeing 757

That's why I'm asking why not release one of the three tapes, either from a hotel, gas station, or the 395 traffic camera to show us what hit it? What're they hiding keeping those videos secret? If it is a 757, which they claim it to be, why not release the tapes?

You've failed to address the video issue...

You've failed to understand.

The hotel camera was too far away to see anything in detail due to that distance and poor focus. This video was released by the FBI December 4, 2006. LINK

The gas station camera was pointed at its pumps and not at the Pentagon. Go figure. This video was released by the FBI September 15, 2006. LINK

Details of the other videos can be found HERE

Cz

[Czero 101]

I expect to see something that looks remotely like a part of a plane somewhere. Even if it's a wheel on the ground.

Ok. Here ya go.

Engine parts definitely identified as coming from a Rolls-Royce RB211 turbofan jet engine, the exact type used by American Airlines on it fleet of 757's:

Landing gear parts positively identified as coming from a Boeing 757:

Fuselage wreckage at the Pentagon:

(hard to see in this image, look at the bottom left, there is a piece of wreckage showing a red "c" from "American Airlines")

I'm not saying it wasn't the 757, because it probably was. There's just some doubt there. Who's to say they're not lying? A cover-up perhaps? Unlikely, but possible.

Unlikely to a degree that makes it near impossible for it not to have been a 757.

Not always. But the fact they won't let us see the crash is questionable, especially with all the crazy conspiracy theories out there about it, they can put them to rest.

See previous post about the videos.

Edited to add...

You may also wish to read this thread:

9/11 Cruise Missile Theory

Cz

Edited August 21, 2009 by Czero 101

[Mario Lemieux]

Thanks for the pictures. That pretty much confirmed what I've though to be fact since it happened 8 years ago, just wanted to explore another possibilty, that now looks impossible.

[Czero 101]

Thanks for the pictures. That pretty much confirmed what I've though to be fact since it happened 8 years ago, just wanted to explore another possibilty, that now looks impossible.

No problem.

Cz

[Obviousman]

Hi Mario!

You remark upon the videos. We know that no videos released have shown any detail. We have been told that other videos do not show the impact.

Let's think about it.

Has anyone with the required technical knowledge been able to demonstrate that any of the known cameras SHOULD have been able to capture better quality images or at least have capture images of the impact?

Has anyone said they installed other cameras, or had previous to 9-11 seen footage from cameras at the Pentagon, other than what we have been shown, that should have shown a clearer image of the impact?

If you know any answer in the affirmative to those questions, I would urge you to get those people to get to a media outlet and tell their story immediately, as it would be world-wide news.

IMO, people are asking for cameras that simply did not exist. Perhaps a comparison may be asking why there was no high quality film of the Kennedy assassination (apart from the poor quality films from bystanders).

[Mario Lemieux]

I understand. All I knew was there were three supposed camera's with a supposed view of the Pentagon. CZ set up some nice links that explained that. I was question those, not anything other than those.

[Obviousman]

No probs, Mario.

Don't forget to verify everything you have been told for yourself.

Cheers!

Edited August 21, 2009 by Obviousman

[KennyB]

Cz, Do you really believe there were no security cameras on the Pentagon building itself, pointing in every direction? I bet there were at least 100. Probably had armed guards, too. That is one of the most important buildings in the world and you would have us believe they had no security? KennyB

[frenat]

Cz, Do you really believe there were no security cameras on the Pentagon building itself, pointing in every direction? I bet there were at least 100. Probably had armed guards, too. That is one of the most important buildings in the world and you would have us believe they had no security? KennyB

It isn't that there were no security cameras, it is about where they were likely to be looking. Security cameras for buildings are typically located at doorways not focused on empty fields.

[merril]

Cz, Do you really believe there were no security cameras on the Pentagon building itself, pointing in every direction? I bet there were at least 100. Probably had armed guards, too. That is one of the most important buildings in the world and you would have us believe they had no security? KennyB

What if something happened to a top priority military asset? And, all of these internet self-appointed, and self-interest/for selfish monetary gain investigatory amateurs demanded every iota of data, regardless of the concerns for the Nation's security. What, then?

Does the government accomodate in a reasonable fashion, or do they suddenly become the whipping boy for every nutter and enemy of the U.S.?

I personally have seen enough pictures, that I almost wish I'd never seen a one.

[Scott G]

Cz, Do you really believe there were no security cameras on the Pentagon building itself, pointing in every direction? I bet there were at least 100. Probably had armed guards, too. That is one of the most important buildings in the world and you would have us believe they had no security?

What if something happened to a top priority military asset?

Sure; the plane itself :-p. The video cameras record those locations all the time; the only tapes that were taken were those in the time frame that the plane approached and allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

And, all of these internet self-appointed, and self-interest/for selfish monetary gain investigatory amateurs demanded every iota of data, regardless of the concerns for the Nation's security. What, then?

Does the government accomodate in a reasonable fashion, or do they suddenly become the whipping boy for every nutter and enemy of the U.S.?

I personally have seen enough pictures, that I almost wish I'd never seen a one.

I'm fairly sure you've done nowhere near the amount of research on this subject that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the Citizen Investigation Team did. And it's clear from their research, both from credible witnesses, as well as from the aerodynamics involved in the official story flight path, that the plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon.

[Scott G]

Cz, Do you really believe there were no security cameras on the Pentagon building itself, pointing in every direction? I bet there were at least 100. Probably had armed guards, too. That is one of the most important buildings in the world and you would have us believe they had no security?

It isn't that there were no security cameras, it is about where they were likely to be looking. Security cameras for buildings are typically located at doorways not focused on empty fields.

Quoting from the new remastered and extended video linked to at the beginning of this thread, starting at about 4:45:

Other cameras filmed the pentagon strike.

The Sheraton National Hotel has a rooftop camera.

"Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation." - Bill Gertz, Washington Times

The film has never been released.

Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead...

His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside... [picture of gas station]

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact...

"I've never seen what the pictures looked like", he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." -National Geographic News

The Virginia Department of Transportation has cameras that would have filmed the aircraft as it flew over Route 27.

The films have never been released.

[Czero 101]

I'm fairly sure you've done nowhere near the amount of research on this subject that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the Citizen Investigation Team did. And it's clear from their research, both from credible witnesses, as well as from the aerodynamics involved in the official story flight path, that the plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon.

And despite all that alleged research and the alleged witnesses, you / they can't come up with a plausible scenario that explains away all the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Funny that...

Cz

[Czero 101]

Quoting from the new remastered and extended video linked to at the beginning of this thread, starting at about 4:45:

All those versions and they still can't get their facts straight...

Other cameras filmed the pentagon strike.

The Sheraton National Hotel has a rooftop camera.

"Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation." - Bill Gertz, Washington Times

The film has never been released.

Jose Velasquez heard the rumble of imminent death overhead...

His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside... [picture of gas station]

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact...

"I've never seen what the pictures looked like", he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." -National Geographic News

The Virginia Department of Transportation has cameras that would have filmed the aircraft as it flew over Route 27.

The films have never been released.

Perhaps you missed my post above where the hotel and gas station videos were discussed and shown to have been released to the public by the FBI in late 2006

The hotel camera was too far away to see anything in detail due to that distance and poor focus. This video was released by the FBI December 4, 2006. LINK

The gas station camera was pointed at its pumps and not at the Pentagon. Go figure. This video was released by the FBI September 15, 2006. LINK

Details of the other videos can be found HERE

Cz

[Obviousman]

Stop bringing facts into this!

[Scott G]

Does the government accomodate in a reasonable fashion, or do they suddenly become the whipping boy for every nutter and enemy of the U.S.?

I personally have seen enough pictures, that I almost wish I'd never seen a one.

I'm fairly sure you've done nowhere near the amount of research on this subject that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the Citizen Investigation Team did. And it's clear from their research, both from credible witnesses, as well as from the aerodynamics involved in the official story flight path, that the plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon.

And despite all that alleged research

Either you haven't seen all their very real research or you're lying. Which is it?

and the alleged witnesses,

Many of the witnesses are the same ones that the official story has used. They did discover others as well. Furthermore, while there are certainly reasons for falsifying evidence in order to concord with the official story, why would anyone make up claims that go -against- the official story?

you / they can't come up with a plausible scenario that explains away all the physical evidence

The physical evidence generally goes -against- the official story. Experts, such as the general who was once in charge of all the army intelligence services, Stubblebine, make it clear that the plane couldn't have fit in the tiny hole that was present soon after the explosion at the pentagon; the hole was later expanded, apparently due to further deterioration of the building, but the original hole was simply too small. Stubblebine says more, as can be seen in the beginning of the other thread speaking of the pentagon in this forum, the somewhat mislabelled "General of All American Intelligence" thread.

and eyewitness accounts of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

CIT has studied and interviewed all of the 104 alleged witnesses. I'll try to get the list later.

[Czero 101]

Either you haven't seen all their very real research or you're lying. Which is it?

Really...? those are the only two options?

I could do a whole lot of really real research into the religious implications of banging two bricks together and come up with some very interesting results. Doesn't mean that its valid reasearch or that it is indicative of anything important.

Many of the witnesses are the same ones that the official story has used. They did discover others as well. Furthermore, while there are certainly reasons for falsifying evidence in order to concord with the official story, why would anyone make up claims that go -against- the official story?

Gee... why would anyone want to jump on the controvertial "It wasn't a 757!!!" bandwagon that will take them out of virtual obscurity and thrust them into the spotlight...?

The physical evidence generally goes -against- the official story.

Please explain how verified physical evidence of a 757 impacting the Pentagon goes against the reality of a 757 hitting the Pentagon...?

Experts, such as the general who was once in charge of all the army intelligence services, Stubblebine, make it clear that the plane couldn't have fit in the tiny hole that was present soon after the explosion at the pentagon; the hole was later expanded, apparently due to further deterioration of the building, but the original hole was simply too small. Stubblebine says more, as can be seen in the beginning of the other thread speaking of the pentagon in this forum, the somewhat mislabelled "General of All American Intelligence" thread.

Cool, another "Loose Change says the hole was too small to fit an aircraft" believer.

Here... have a look at this post of mine from a while back in the "9/11 Cruise Missile" thread that explains the actual damage that was done, not just the damage that the Loose Changers want you to see.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=156359&view=findpost&p=2965789

Cz

Edited August 24, 2009 by Czero 101