Pentagon Plane Video - l think I can see something....

[dodgy]

[IronSnot]

I did read it properly the first time. I happen to disagree with it. I think there's some evidence of a plane which, could be a 757, could be a 737. To say that there's some evidence of a 757 shows bias.

[insidejob]

Dodgy,

Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF says : "When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminium converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder ? the plane fuselage ? is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."

Hmmm. “…much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy” but doesn’t completely destroy the exterior wall - must be some new fangled type of paint. What’s a “shaped charge”? The 757 is going to penetrate before “it’s spent”. What does that mean?

So, I suppose he’s saying that the “brilliant white luminescent flash” is the aluminium of the plane turning into aluminum oxide. He then says the same plane continued into the building “penetrating until it is consumed”, so that means penetrating the third Pentagon ring. So, the some of the plane burned into vapour at the first ring, while the rest continued to smash through reinforced concrete until the third ring and then turned to vapour again but without the fireball. I’m sorry, I don’t understand Venusian.

I’ve had a look at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#approach and still don’t understand how a plane travelling at around 500mph and descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes could level off at 20 feet. Or did I miss the bit about the anti-graviton machine the USAF got from those aliens at Roswell?

The Missing Engine: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
Oh, and the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, who was that other person that said that? Another alien I think. But just in case, we better invade Iran.

The compressor appears to have been crushed (highly suprising).
And cushed in a way that leaves the O-rings in line with one another and parallel to the rim. It’s them aliens, again.

http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FLYING HEAVY AIRCRAFT WITHOUT TRAINING
by Nila Sagadevan

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes…

… I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads. The DVD, "Loose Change - 1st Edition" contains an excellent clip of trucks being blown off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles-and the Global Hawk.)…

[blackcat]

Now now - don't go using experts to destroy their little fantasy. It must have all been possible because it happened! There were "witnesses"! I'm not sure if they were "500 yards away" but detail like that is unimportant. Just let them say what they like. And remember - next in line is the super high temperature burning jet fuel in wtc 1 and 2 and 7 which kept the steel red hot for weeks. Don't let a little thing like reality get in the way. If you cannot explain to them precisely what DID happen, together with the names and addresses of the perpetrators then you have no case. Cease doubting - you are feeling sleepy ....

[IronSnot]

[Wokeman]

Insidejob,

What you've described is a fantasy! And flown by an arab hijacker!

[dodgy]

[insidejob]

Dodgy,

The rogue criminal network that perpetrated the Pentagon strike will engage in propaganda, disinformation and lies to cover up their crimes. Why it is that you are arguing like them, I don’t know. I would hope that people on this site would not be taken in by them. And visitors certainly shouldn’t make use of their propaganda techniques.

Dodgy, it may be that you believe that the criminal network used a real 757. But what you are actually doing is engaging in disinformation, speculation and interpretation in order to support the major parts of the official story of Pentagon. This is why your story descends into absurdity.

It is absurd to argue that a plane behaved like vapour and at the same time behaved like the opposite of vapour. You make use of a general who is clearly committed to the official conspiracy theory to support this nonsense. The plane has to behave like vapour in order to explain why none of it can be found. But it also has to behave like the opposite of vapour, and, indeed, like a bullet, in order to explain how it smashed three holes into the Pentagon rings. To cover up the gaps in this story, you state that some of the plane turned into vapour and some of the plane behaved like a bullet, smashed a number of holes and then turned into vapour. Why would some of the plane vaporise and not other parts of it? We don’t know. Where’s the evidence that under such conditions a 757 behaves like this? There is none, because it’s the first and only time something like this happened. Therefore, you can push your speculative nonsense knowing that you have the powerful on your side. While, experts and the media don’t dare openly contract the governments.

Then there’s the plane descent issue. We know that the plane travelled as low as 20 feet before smashing into the Pentagon. It is reasonable to conclude that before it’s descent it was a lot higher, perhaps 7,000 feet. IT is reasonable to conclude that it had to make a spiral descent. But how do we know it first made a steep descent to 1,000 feet and then a slow descent to 20 feet? We don’t. You come up with some impressive looking calculations to tell us it was so. That is, you come up with no more than propaganda designed to fit the official story.

What about the problem of jet blast and wake turbulence? You state that because the visible evidence presented in Loose Change involved a stationery plane, you can then ignore it. And in a puff of smoke, the problem of jet blast and wake turbulence disappears. I’m sorry Dodgy, it doesn’t disappear and to suggest that it does is the behaviour of a propagandist.

What about the debris? None of the debris can be categorically said to belong to a 757 or similar plane. Loose Change points out that some of what could be parts of the engine and landing gear is far too small to be from a 757. Some debris looks a bit like parts of a 757 but with important differences. You explain this difference by saying the part was crushed. What’s the evidence that it was crushed? None. In fact, you suggest that crushing simply shrank the part ie it crushed in a highly unlike way. What is this other than propaganda created in order to fit the official story?

And what of flying a passenger jet at 20 feet? A pilot says it’s impossible. Someone else dedicated to support the official story comes up with speculation to state that it’s not. What’s the evidence that it is actually possible? There is none. Either may be true or not, as a non-expert, I don’t know. What I suspect is that it is highly unlikely that a pilot or a computer could comfortably fly a plane at that height at a significant distance without touching any part of the ground or crashing before it go to the Pentagon.

It may be there was a passenger jet at the Pentagon which eyewitnesses saw but it didn’t crash into the Pentagon. There were reports of other passenger planes and reports of a military plane near the Pentagon at the time of the crash. One of the first reports that turned up on television (as reported by 911 Eyewitness) was that a military man saw a helicopter pass over the Pentagon and then saw the explosion. This is testimony that doesn’t conflict with physics, (although it is not supported by anything else I have seen). But Dodgy wants to ignore all of that.

Thierry Meyssan’s work was key in getting people to question the official 911 story. The nonsense of the Pentagon strike is a key means of undermining the official story. Yet, Dodgy engages in misinformation about 90 foot holes obscured by jets of water and silly set ups whereby the Government encourages people to believe the Pentagon no-plane story only to do something or other sometime or other that will make us all look silly.

I need more evidence about Sam Danner who says a plane definitely did not hit the Pentagon. But it’s interesting that Dodgy tries to take us away from the Pentagon at around the same time that Danner reveals himself. Dodgy actively uses individuals and perspectives that have been created to attack the 911 Truth Movement.

So, Dodgy, what exactly you up to?


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
A BOEING 757 DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminium can, travelling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminium can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,

Michael Meyer

[jake]

[blackcat]

[jake]

hmmmmm - as I said on another thread - I don't know what hit the pentagon and neither do you. that's why I think it's best to keep an open mind about it. why nail your colours to the mast on this issue when you can attack the official story in so many other ways?

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/pentagon.html

many of the claims which have been made by people who insist that no 757 hit the pentagon can easily be shown to be false (as they already have been in this thread) - which only gives ammunition to defenders of the official conspiracy theory, who can focus on these mistakes to demonstrate the gullibility and incompetence of those who made them.

one of the funniest of these is the ludicrous claim made by eric hufschmid that a photo of a few guys carrying a blue tent is actually damning evidence of the new world order illuminati trying to cover up something sinister. this kind of amateurish bs leaves all of us who question the official story open to ridicule.

and here's more of the same....

[insidejob]

Jake,

Thanks, Jake, I get it now.

None of the damage to the Pentagon could conceivably have been made by a missile or a drone. Impossible. The damage was obviously caused by a 757. Why are people questioning this? There's no neat hole, or three neat holes, because that's a complete misunderstanding of the damage. They are un-neat holes, stupid.

And what happened was that the plane made a right mess of the building and created a massive hole. The great big breach caused by the 757 became difficult to see when people started taking photographs and film of it because the rescue workers were standing in the way. And when later part of the building was filmed collapsing, it was only a very small part of the building. If people thought it was a significant collapse, they're stupid!!!

That dumb architect (featured recently on Nationa Geographic tv) who rebuilt the Pentagon was clearly stupid when he expressed surprise about why an 80 ton 757 going at 500mph didn't cause more damage to the building!!! Equally stupid when he expressed surprise that only a small part of the Pentagon was affected the impact. I now realise that the plane was specially built so that some of it would turn into vapour on impact, only stupid people wouldn't realise that.

And of course a wooden stole, a book, a computer screen photographed at the crash site on the first floor is going to survive the impact when the 757 turned to vapour (but only some of it). That's what sprinkler systems are for, stupid.

And as for that Pentagon survivor (on the tv programme) saying he didn't know how he survived when he was in the direct path of the plane. Another idiot. How is vapour going to kill him? Stupid, eh?

And the reason those witnesses didn't hear the 757 until it was virtually on top of them even though it travelled feet off the ground... the engines had silencers, which obviously vapourised when the plane crashed. As if you had to be a genius to work that one out!!!

And although some witnesses said the approaching plane banked and the wing touched the ground, it obviously wouldn't leave any trace on the ground. The grass was specially created by the same people who did the autopilot computer, stupid!!!

And if some witnesses claimed that the wing just missed them and was nonetheless unaffected by jet blast or wake turbulance, it was because the pilot briefly switched off the engines as it passed them. And wake turbulance is only significant when the plane is stationery!!! Anyone knows that.

And those idiots who think that just because a reporter said he couldn't see any remains of any planes at the Pentagon and because that fire chief said he didn't know what happened to the plane and then they think this constitutes some sort of evidence...they're just stupid. Even a child can work out that the plane would turn to vapour while other bits would destroy part of the building and then turned to vapour.

And, of course, the plane did a sharp spiral descent from 7,000 feet to 1,000 feet going 500mph, then stopped sharply spirally descending, then gently descended to crash into the Pentagon with the engines almost touching the grass and all by some clever autopilot. Computers are built to do that, stupid!!

And of course the Pentagon are going to keep back vital evidence that would prove that a 757 did crash just so those dunderheaded sceptics are going think the Pentagon are hiding something and the basis of that help build a 911 Truth Movement to the point that one third of the US people think the Government did it, only to suddenly release the evidence - at some indeterminate time in the future, sometime - to make the Movement look silly but not so silly because people would still think the Government did it, rahther than release it in the first place so that people wouldn't give the Movement a second thought. It's obvious.

The kind of stupid things those Pentagon no-planers whackos say is just embarassingly stupid.

[jake]

hey insidejob

[DeFecToR]

This is my first recent post on this subject. I've so far been happy to read through what people are posting but i now feel i need to convey something.

This is starting to hurt. To watch people who agree on 911 in general viciously insult each other over what did or did not hit the Pentagon. For * sake people WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE
Sure, debate it, but PLEASE hold back on any urge to actually insult each other. Its horrible to watch.


With that said; is anyone aware of any computer simulations that have been carried out that simulate a 757 hitting the Pentagon?

[jake]

cheers for trying to be the voice of reason - I just posted the following list as examples of reasons why i think 9/11 is an inside job....

[Leiff]

DeFecToR

I was wondering the same thing myself yesterday when I was reading about the impossibility of flying a 757 at 20 feet at 500 mph due to the down-wash effect. Are the latest flight sims for PC accurate enough to replicate this effect? I'm sure it would be fun trying!

[DeFecToR]

I know of someone who tried using Flight Simulator 2005 and couldnt do it, but i certainly do not regard this as evidence.

I was also wondering though if a simulation had been carried out for the effects of a plane hitting the Pentagon ie. forces involved, wall damage etc.
Basically, would it be possible for those reinforced walls to be penetrated as viewed in the images taken at the crash site?
It would seem to me that, with enough money/time/skill, it would certainly be possible to simulate the crash of a 757 in to that type of structure.

[DeFecToR]

I'm not entirely clued up (at least not as much as i first thought) on this subject.
I have deep suspicions about the OS on the Pentgon strike.
Could someone please give me a concise, leyman termed explanation for where exactly in this photo a 757 is supposed to have crashed;



Thank you.

[insidejob]

[Mark Gobell]

Flight 77 impact speed, distances and eye witness reports

Depending upon which story is true, if any, reports have Flight 77 travelling anywhere between 500 mph during flight and 345 mph at impact.

The 345 mph impact speed is reported here by Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34412,00.html in an article dated Sept 15th 2001, where they claim that the Flight 77 flight data recorders have been recovered and investigators "are getting good solid readings" from them.

Now, before anyone starts jumping over the veracity of Fox and / or this report, I am not suggesting that either Fox reports should be believed or that this report is indeed "factual". I include it here simply because it is the only reference I can find to the impact speed of Flight 77, and that Fox claim that this data has been recovered from the FDR's.

If anyone can provide any other links to reports about Flight 77 impact speed I would be very grateful.

All I am pointing out in the figures below is the distance that Flight 77 must have travelled if it was flying at the upper speed of 500 mph or the lower speed of 345 mph, to give a range of more meaningful speeds in yards per second and to illustrate distances travelled and possible viewing times.

At 500 mph, distance = 244 yards per second or 732 feet per second

At 345 mph, distance = 168 yards per second or 504 feet per second

There are a few reported eye witness statements that include an estimate of how far away they were from, presumably, Flight 77 or the Pentagon.

It informs our judgement of these statements to calculate the time that the eye witnesses would have to see the things they claim to have seen.

The meaning of the distances in the reported eye witness statements are not always clear either.

If a reported distance of 100 yards is interpreted as "I was 100 yards from Flight 77" then the following calculations illustrate the time that the eye witness would have had to see what they claim to have seen.

At 500 mph, at a distance of 100 yards the eye witness has 0.4 seconds to see what they are reported as having witnessed.

At 345 mph, at a distance of 100 yards, the eye witness has 0.6 seconds to see what they are reported to having witnessed.

If, however a reported distance of 100 yards is interpreted as "I was 100 yards from the Pentagon when I saw Flight 77" then we have an insoluble problem.

This is because even though the witness may mean they were 100 yards from the Pentagon, we have no way of knowing where Flight 77 was in their field of view at that time and therefore how far away Flight 77 was from the eye witness.

So, if we are to interpret the reported eye witness statement this way, we cannot calculate the distance between the eye witness and Flight 77.

What remains factual though is the distance travelled figures hold true for Flight 77's impact speed regardless of where the eye witness was or where Flight 77 was at that time.

An impact speed of 500 mph means that Flight 77 was travelling at 244 yards per second or 732 feet per second. Even if the flight was seen at a distance of say 500 yards at this speed, this would mean that the eye witness would have an absolute maximum of only 2.04 seconds to see what they claim to have seen.

An impact speed of 345 mph means that Flight 77 was travelling at 168 yards per second or 504 feet per second. Even if the flight was seen at a distance of say 500 yards at this speed, this would mean that the eye witness would have an absolute maximum of only 2.97 seconds to see what they claim to have seen.

Another way to express these figures, would be to say that for every 100 yards of distance between Flight 77 and an eye witness, they would have at best 0.6 seconds and at worst 0.4 seconds to see what they are reported to have seen.

Another perspective is given by expressing the time taken for the entire length of a 757-200 to pass over any given point.

Boeing quote the overall length of a 757-200 as 115 feet 3 inches, which is 38.41 yards.

At 500 mph the time for the entire length to pass over any given point is about 0.16 seconds

At 345 mph the time for the entire length to pass over any given point is about 0.23 seconds

I have used an arbitrary distance of 500 yards here just to illustrate the possible timings. I have no idea how much of AA77's flight, anyone could have seen because that would depend upon their eyesight, where they were standing in relation to both the aircraft, local geography, buildings, weather conditions etc.

I am not even getting into what amount of detail that can be seen at any given distance, but suggest that my best case baseline assumptions would be 20/20 vision, clear observable detail at 500 yards of an aircraft travelling at anywhere between 345 mph and 500 mph, which I suggest are extremely generous assumptions.

Clearly then at 345 mph, if we reduce the 500 yards baseline then the available viewing time decreases by 0.6 seconds per 100 yards and one could suggest that the perceivable detail may be increased.

If we increase the 500 yards baseline then the available viewing time increases by 0.6 seconds per 100 yards and one could suggest that the perceivable detail may be decreased.

Whilst considering the possibilities about what we could reliably have been seen, in what time and from what distance, remember that AA77 is reported to have been travelling at a minimum speed of 345 mph.

I am no legal expert but suggest that a lawyer would easily argue such testimony as unreliable in a court of law.

[jake]

[dodgy]

[Mark Gobell]

I'm not a mathematician, physicist or an eye witness expert so I may have approached this issue incorrectly.

But, would anybody care to comment on the amount of time an eye witness would have to observe an aircraft travelling at a minimum speed of 345 mph ?

[DeFecToR]

Search is over guys. I've figured out what hit the Pentagon.

http://www.sayagain.co.uk/b3tapix/images/takeoff.gif

[IronSnot]

Well he's at the right height.

[Mark Gobell]

Wow Defector that is spooky.

I didn't want to say anything before but now that you've found the actual evidence it's time for me to confess.

On the morning of Sept 11th I was sitting in my car on Eternal War Drive just outside the Pentagon, at the intersection of Meglomaniacs Boulevard, when I heard this strange unfamiliar sound of a low flying aircraft underscored with the rythmic beat of, well, this is kinda difficult to say, makes me sound a bit weird, but it sounded like the heavy pounding of like someone running.

I turned and saw this incoming plane and well this is the strange thing, it had a pair of legs sticking out of the bottom of it - like a man was running with the plane on his shoulders.

I know what I saw even though it sounds crazy. I could see the Nike emblems on his trainers, and the crease of his shorts, everything.

It came in at between, roughly, I'd say, between 500 and 501 mph no more. Then it crashed into the Pentagon.

Thanks for finding this Defector - you don't know what it means to me.

[blackcat]

Its as likely as a 757.

[SmithErik]

I like David Chandler , so far he has greatly contributed to the 9/11 truth movement , i was kinda diving into his YT channel and came across a series about the Pentagon attack , i was suprised to hear them say they believe it might have been a plane while most people agree that the hole in the Pentagon was way too small for a large yet , where is the damage done by the wings ???

Anyhow as i'm open to what mr Chandler has to say about it im still amazed and dumbfounded about the slow replay of the video images , guy's what are your thoughts on this ? Is this forum still alive and kicking ?

I find the images in this video link below not really convincing but i'm not an expert in analyzing zoomed in video's

Seeing the Pentagon Plane

Link


everything i thought was fake this guy say's is true , i'm confused. I have to do more research into this because it has somewhat created an impasse in the truth movement. I would like to get people on the forum more involved in this issue so we might end up with healthy solid conclusions.

Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence: How We Got Here, Ken Jenkins

Link