Pentagon Strike on 9/11

I just watched a flash video about the Pentagon strike that raises very serious questions about the nature of that attack. Myself, knowing very little about the attack, am not in a position to judge the authenticity of the claims. The video is found athttp://www.freedomunderground.org/...yhole/pentagon.php#MainAny comments about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims would be appreciated.

Video isn't a great idea for my internet connection. Is it possible you could briefly summarize whatever claims you find most interesting, and whatever evidence they offer in support?

My brothers office was in the section where the plane crashed. There are no questions as to what happened. That site is simply bullshit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok, this is what the authors were trying to get across. I'm going to try to get most of the points showed on the show. Officially, the plane that hit the pentagon was a 757. This picture shows just how small of an impact area the plane that hit the pentagon caused. Again, you can see just how neatly the plane that hit the pentagon fit into there. This is supposed to be an indication that something a lot smaller hit the pentagon, not the 757. Windows intact. The high pitch squeal sound is supposed to belong to smaller airplanes. The 757 should have given out a much bigger and lower pitch roar. Many eyewitnesses swore that they saw a small 2 engine plane, not something as big as a 757. More witness report. Some witnesses said that it sounded like a missile. Again, the author(s) wanted to point out just how well the plane fit into the building. It doesn't make sense that something as big as a 757 fit so perfectly in there. Some people also asked the question "where did the wings go?"

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Another main point is that there wasn't any scar on the ground around the impact site. This picture shows the scars that planes that size leave behind. No scar anywhere on the ground. Small hole where the plane supposedly entered the building. The author(s) asked the question "does this look like somewhere where a 757 just crashed into?" This message has been edited by Darth Mal, 09-21-2004 01:50 AM

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This was taken by a camera of the pentagon. Does it look like a 757? You decide! It was flying really fast at a very low altitude. Yet, not a single person on the highway near by saw the thing flying by. This guy was supposedly not qualified to fly a 757. No 757 there. Credit.

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

It was a nicely made video, and appeared to raise questions. But here are questions that can be raised about it, yet they never address.1) Flight 77 did go down. If as they claim that plane did NOT hit the Pentagon, where did it crash? It appears that such planes leave a lot of evidence, no?2) On board that specific plane was a congressman's wife (who was also a CNN employee, or was at one time). She was in communication with him via a cell phone. Are we to believe the Congressman is lying and allowed his wife to be killed, go missing, in order to help the FBI create this story?3) What on earth is this coverup about? That we manufactured the pentagon crash? I didn't get anything from this.4) If it had been a small plane filled with explosives or something, why wouldn't they just admit that?5) What was necessarily wrong with the evidence of the crash? An aerodynamic shape travelling very fast into a reinforced structure may very well just punch a hole it the wall. That's a testament to the strength of the wall. And the entire crash area could have been within the structure. Look at the WTC crash footage... they had less reinforced walls.6) I agree that the lack of wings does seem odd, yet lots of strange things happen at high speeds. Perhaps the wings got pulled in behind the plane due to momentum, sheered flat to its side. Why would that be impossible.7) It is well known that Rumsfeld has a piece of the wreckage in his office. Can we not check it to see if it came from that flight? If it is, what happened to the plane besides hitting the pentagon. If not, why would he have invented that piece of wreckage that would cause controversy?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is a big pile of nonsense based on utter ignorance of the facts. There was a short piece on the BBC about it.1. According to a crash expert when a plane hits the ground the first thing that happens is that the wings snap off. Thus only the central body continued to hit the building. Did the 'theorist' expect a cartoon style plane shaped hole?2. Over a hundred eye witnesses reported seeing the plane hit the pentagon.

Not to defend it but I think what they were suggesting is that there were no wings ever recovered. If they "snapped off" they should have still landed somewhere and certainly broken windows to the side (from impact).And if it hit the ground (before the building), there should have been a mark on the ground.This of course ignores the possibility that it hit the building first and the wings sheared to the sides crumpling backward against the plane's body.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There was an hour long documentary on Channel 4 or 5 - I don't remember which - that investigated a string of conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.This was one of the ones featured - it pointed out that lots of people actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon and had an interview with one of them. All I remember about his details was that he worked for USA Today.They stated the reason there is no trace of the wings is that they folded along the fuselage as holmes suggested. That (combined with the fact the wings were full of fuel, so they basically got blown to bits and/or incinerated) meant there wasn't much left of them that you could recognise as a bit of wing.

I've seen this a hundred times. It is so dumb, but it never dies. It's amazing what you can do with selective interviews and a lack of knowlege of what happens when airplanes crash; my favorite part is the "does this look like a 757?" in which they show an image so pixelated it might as well be bugs bunny that you're supposed to compare to.I listened to the news on 9/11 all day... and the day after, and the day after. It was one eyewitness after another, describing seing the 757 hit. None of them saw anything "suspicious" about it. There were *tens of thousands of witnesses* at various points of approach. Why weren't they all screaming their lungs out about the "coverup"?But more importantly, is the main sticking point they always seem to focus on: where is all of the wreckage? Despite the fact that many of their pictures are of teams sweeping and *removing* the wreckage, this shows a complete ignorance of what happens in an airplane crash.I've been to a crash site. What do you expect to see, a mostly intact plane, just twisted, like a bad car accident? Not even slightly close to the mark. A car has a (usually) thick steel frame and may collide, at worst, with a net velocity of 100 kph, with a mass of 500kg. That's about 14,000 newtons of force on a (relatively) thick steel frame. Make it a high speed head-on collision, and call it 28,000 newtonsAn airplane crash is a completely different beast. You have a thin aluminum skeleton. The takeoff mass of a loaded 757 is usually around 100,000 kg, and we're dealing with a collision speed of (800kph?). We're talking about 22 *billion* newtons of force (*excluding the explosion*) on a thin aluminium frame.Unlike steel, aluminum will shatter under extreme conditions. And that's what we have here. The aircraft, simply from being an airtight vessel, would explode to bits even without fuel. With fuel, not much will be left behind.The plane that I saw (an old B24 bomber that was never cleaned up) was a mess. To put it lightly. All that remained "intact", if you can call anything there "intact", was about a quarter of a wing attached to about 1/8th of the fuselage. The next largest piece was a chunk of aluminum and windows perhaps 10 feet long and 4 feet high; beyond that, things got smaller fast. At the center of the crash, was *tiny aluminum nodules*. The heat from the explosion literally melted much of the frame to slag. Of what didn't meet this fate, most was turned into shrapnel and scattered across the mountainside.If there *WAS* a hoax, I would expect to find large chunks of airplane scattered around. Unlike a real crash, which, if at high speed, *doesn't* leave such things. Your "low speed, pilot trying to salvage the plane" crashes may leave such debris, but a high speed crash will not. Your typical pile of smouldering, heaping wreckage that you see on the news from a plane that broke up in midair won't do such a crash justice, either; despite not having a pressurized, highly explosive collision, such components fall from the sky at their terminal velocity, which will generally be far lower than 530 mph.530 mph on a flimsy but pressurized piece of aluminum filled to the brim with explosive fuel won't leave much of a trace behind - trust me.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-21-2004 07:11 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

i saw a huge refutation on that when it was new.i'll go look and see if i can find it.

No worry, I think it's pretty clear that the site is bullshit.

No worry, I think it's pretty clear that the site is bullshit.

Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum