Where's the Pentagon jet from 9-11: Video

[Sequoia]

Must see.


http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

[JRob]

1. I've seen some other film on this and it's truly disturbing...

[JHB]

10. Not half as disturbing as how uncritically too many people view it.

Here's one site that has a good summary, and please also follow the source links. Sorry that it doesn't have the nifty dramatic video editing and vaugely creepy music, but facts shouldn't need to be dressed up:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

It Was Flight 77
Debunking Alternative Pentagon Crash Theories

The damage done by the flying object to nearby light poles, the Pentagon's facade, and other objects is consistent with the measurements of a Boeing 757-200. By examining the damage, it is possible to conclusively rule out the possibility that a missile or small jet struck the Pentagon on September 11.

[alarimer]

12. And where the hell did that plane go if it didn't hit the Penatagon

It sure as hell is gone, along with the people on it. Wasn't there video from someone on the freeway with the plane flying extremely low? And somehow it WASN'T that plane that hit the Pentagon. I can't believe anyone would believe this crap but I am glad there are sources debunking it.

[cdb]

2. Tin foil hat time....n/t

[JRob]

5. Really!? Watch "911 In Plain Sight" and then make your "Tin foil" comment

Once you look at the photo evidence it's kind of hard to deny that there's something fishy... If a 757 to have hit the Pentagon where is the aircraft or any part of it? Find one photo that illustrates that it happen.

[JHB]

11. Google pentagon plane debris ..

...you'll find photos of "any part" of a jetliner.

[JRob]

17. after the fact, I'm sure there is a ton of it... Look I'm not necessarily

saying it happened or didn't happen the way they say... but I'm not going to make a definitive judgment based on random photos on the internet. I just accept the fact that I'll probably never know for sure.

Again I'm not saying it happened one way or the other, just that when you look at the alternative and initial claims, similar photos with and without debris that it raises questions.

With everything that's gone down in the last 5 years I am somewhat amazed that people are so quick to trust and or dismiss...

In the end, and as fantastic as it may seem I would not be surprised if it was all part of a plan and that what we believe (or what is widely accepted) turned out to be bullshit... eg WMD's

I guess I'm not willing to commit to a position "one way or the other" on faith that any one source it correct.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. I was told

by a friend who worked for Boeing at the time of the 9-11 attack that there was enough debris from any of the planes to do the sort of investigation that they normally do when there is a crash.

Another interesting bit of info that he told me was that the investigation of the crashes was moved from the civilian unit to the military unit two days after 9-11. Odd since these were civilian airliners that crashed?

[MercutioATC]

16. Actually, "In Plane Site" is a collection of half-truths and innuendo.

...and blatant misrepresentations in some cases....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=31776

[JRob]

18. interesting...

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm all for questioning things, but VonKleist is somebody to be wary of.

He claims to present evidence and let viewers make up their own minds, but he frequently misrepresents facts, making that very difficult to do.

He DOES have a great flair for generating propaganda that makes an emotional connection, though.

[JRob]

28. there are some valid questions though... and my position is no position

other than to keep an open mind. In the end that has proved to be the best position.

[MercutioATC]

29. Absolutely...it just scares me to think that some people who take the time

to actually ASK the questions fall prey to charlatans like VonKleist.

It's amazing what a snazzy flash presentation with spooky music will do...

[philb]

36. He's in the Entertainment Medium; but he also has some credible witnesses

The important thing is the witnesses credibility and the documentation.

[MercutioATC]

39. But how do you know what the witnesses really say?

...or how reliable they are.

VonKleist has already demonstrated that he'll misrepresent facts and edit witness statements to support his argument.

[name not needed]

3. It's been debunked. Read this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[JRob]

14. Good piece and I'll need to read it completely, but there are other sites

that support the opposite with all the dimensions etc. Regardless of which argument you tend to accept you got to know that ALL this "photo evidence" CAN BE suspect.

My attitude is that I wouldn't doubt it, but in the end will we ever really know?

Unless you were there...

[beam me up scottie]

4. Not this again...

:tinfoilhat:

[hippiechick]

6. Ho.Lee.Shit.

:wow:

[name not needed]

9. .

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[hippiechick]

19. 2 questions:

1. Where are the wings/wing debris
2. Where are the 'skid marks'/landing gear marks on the lawn ?

:shrug:

[BlueStateGirl]

21. I don't think the landing gear was down. They wanted to crash the plane

into the Pentagon, not land on the lawn.

[kittenpants]

22. exactly.

where are the wings from the World Trade Center planes? I love the question in "Plane Sight" asking what happened to the jet fuel! uh, perhaps the jet fuel burned up in the huge fire?!

I agree that there are a lot of mysteries surrounding 9/11, but this one just seems to be built out of speculation & ignores all the people who actually witnessed the event.

[hippiechick]

31. Pretty good aim ... low and inside ...

I don't know what to think, the whole thing still seems fishy to me.

[MercutioATC]

35. Maybe that was just where it happened to hit?

There's no evidence that they were AIMING for that particular spot. They were trying to hit the Pentagon and that's where they hit it.

[On the Road]

7. Well, It Was Definitnely Not a Missile

because the object that flew into the Pentagon clipped light poles that were at least 75 feet apart. There is a clip that shows a plane colliding with the Pentagon that appears a lot smaller. I don't know what the wingspan of the smaller plane might be.

[philb]

37. One of the witnesses regarding the light poles said the pole was hit by

the fuselage. But I think some also said hit by wings. Some of the types of planes espoused by various parties include anything from a missile to an F-16(per video) to an A-3 coverted for remote control to 737 and 757.

2 French Engineers analyzed the witness statements, official reports, etc. and both concluded the pentagon was hit by a large plane like a 757(or 737) that were rigged with bombs which did much of the damage. The surviving Pentagon witnesses also supported this. And that the plane was directed by remote control, perhaps by the C130 Electronics Warfare plane that followed the big plane in at the Pentagon and flew through the smoke.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html

This site also documents that there was DU involved in the bombs which resulted in radiation contamination of the Pentagon site and the surrounding area. this was also verified by people with Geiger counters and commented on by an EPA agent. The Official ASCE report noted that the FBI did some decontamination.

[philb]

38. One of the witnesses regarding the light poles said the pole was hit by

the fuselage. But I think some also said hit by wings. Some of the types of planes espoused by various parties include anything from a missile to an F-16(per video) to an A-3 coverted for remote control to 737 and 757.

2 French Engineers analyzed the witness statements, official reports, etc. and both concluded the pentagon was hit by a large plane like a 757(or 737) that was rigged with bombs which did much of the damage. The surviving Pentagon witnesses also supported this. And the author concluded that the plane was directed by remote control, perhaps by the C130 Electronics Warfare plane that followed the big plane in at the Pentagon and flew through the smoke.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html

This site also documents that there was DU involved in the bombs which resulted in radiation contamination of the Pentagon site and the surrounding area. this was also verified by people with Geiger counters and commented on by an EPA agent. The Official ASCE report noted that the FBI did some decontamination.

[lvx35]

8. I believed this for awhile

until I did my homework...Its all pretty explained. It was a 757.

[BlueStateGirl]

13. Here's the thing I don't get about this.... why not just crash Flight 77

into the Pentagon? Why the subterfuge?

Why use a missle? Or a commuter plane? Or a militay jet? The video itself seems to offer 3 possibilties. So which one is it? Which witnesses are wrong? The ones who said it was communter plane? The ones who said it sounded like a missle? The one who said he smelled cordite?


And what happened to the plane? The people on it?

[JRob]

20. we may never know

[LizW]

15. I can't take seriously anything that cherry-picks eyewitness testimony

and leaves out all the people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Many people sitting in cars in traffic saw the plane fly over and they described the impact in great detail.

Saying the "mind control" got to them just doesn't cut it.

There's a lot that's fishy about 9/11, but not this.

[JRob]

27. it's all fishy including this...

My position on this is that I'll probably never know one way or the other. I'm not willing to dismiss either possibility.

The debris represented in some photos is not representative of a 757. Where are the engines? Those things are huge, relatively solid chucks of metal... The photo's that are used to substantiate the popular claim show some tin, a wheel and close ups of something that might be part of the gear... Look at photos of other plane wreaks and debris fields and say there nothing fishy about the Pentagon.

[BlueStateGirl]

30. Remember the Valu-Jet crash in 1996? There was nothing left of that plane

It crashed into swampland and disintegrated. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that an aircraft traveling up wards of 300 mph would shatter into very small pieces upon hitting a reinforced concrete wall.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/21/valujet.pm/index.html

[zalwer]

23. go back 2 sleep

Slaves, nothing 2 see here, go back to the slavepen and drink the government lace water...Slaves dont make waves

[FreedomAngel82]

24. I have seen this before

Definitley something to think about. If you haven't visit http://www.reopen911.org They have SO Much information there it's just mind boogling. Don't forget shortly after the "attack" happened the FBI went to a local gas station that got EVERYTHING on film and took their sercurity tapes from them. We've never seen anything except these few photo's. Why? They exploit the hell out of 9/11, so why not the Pentagon too?

[Old and In the Way]

33. This would be a rather easy "conspiracy" to put to bed.

Release the videotapes. Either the camera's on the Sheraton, the top of the Pentagon, the DOT, or the gas station had to have caught reasonably clear images of what hit the Pentagon. If not the whole thing, why not individual frames? They released those shitty security cam pics that show nothing as to what hit the Pentagon....why not pics that would end any doubt?

My question is, why haven't they been released? What possible reason to keep them a state secret?

Does anyone know whether the 9/11 Commission requested the tapes as part of the official record? If they were, who refused to release them and under what grounds? Ought to be a FOIA made to get those tapes released ....there's no good reason I can think of that is served by keeping them a secret.

[pauldp]

32. Demolition a much more solid argument,

say if you're trying to convince a Republican.

[philb]

34. Eric Bart looked at the evidence and concluded plane packed with bombs

Eric Bart(engineer & pilot) looked at all the witness info and concluded the Pentagon was hit by a big plane loaded with shaped charges which exploded just before the plane hit the wall- producing the white blast and red fireball outside the Pentagon, and destroying the wing and tail sections which thus caused little damage.
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv4.html

His analysis fits the evidence better than most options.

But other things are possible also, and who or what was flying the plane is a big issue also.

Virtually all pilots who are on record regarding 9/11 say the plane was obviously flown by remote control. As covered on other threads.

There is a lot of evidence much or most of the damage was done by high explosives, as supported by Pentagon survivor witnesses
http://www.flcv.com/pentexpl.html