The "plane" that hit the Pentagon

[freddie]

Hello Graham,

Is that picture to illustrate the importance of the missing cctv footage? - I agree that these would be the definitive evidence, but just to re-iterate, the fact they are being kept secret does not in any way point to it being a missile or global hawk - and I think they are being kept back to confuse and complicate the truth.

As for the engine, you are right, and I've never come across the other one - nor another set of landing gear. This is a good point and one of the weaknesses in the official account, and mine.

Anyone else ever come across any of these pieces? - Also, the small engine(like) thing found has been identified as both a global hawk engine and a APU from the tale of a 757 - so far I can't find confirmation of this either way - anyone else found anything to identify this piece? as it appears to be a lynch pin of both theories.

[gypsum]

Freddie

How can you say that the no-plane theory is based on absolutely nothing? Nothing I have seen suggests that it was a plane as large as the 757 that hit the pentagon.

Just imagine you hadn't been told the official story...do you think you would have come to the conclusion that it was a 757 or similar that crashed into the pentagon?

As I said before...all the US government would need to do is release those damn cctv tapes. Why withhold them? To try and get the last laugh if it did turn out to be a plane? I think not...

[freddie]

Hey Gypsum,

[Mathias]

1 point: The great dissimilarities between a 737 and a 757 airplane crash, both at full speed.

STARTING POINT ===>

I believe everything that the government told me.

MOTIVE ===>

I just want to show you the difference between the 2005 Greek 737 Helios Crash and the 757 crash at the Pentagon, letting you decide for your own selves.



On the 15th of August 2005, a Greek Helios 737 jet slammed into a hill at FULL speed because the pilot lost conscience due to a cabin pressure drop.

A 737 airliner. So we could legitimately, reasonably, logically compare the crashes, right? Please interfere if you think I'm jumping to conclusions.

So, the jet slammed into a hill at full speed.

Now take 5 and watch the video of the debris.

PLEASE WATCH THIS, THE VIDEO IS NOT TOO BIG AND DOESN'T TAKE LONG.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4150312.stm

It crashed into the hill under very comparable circumstances, we still agree?

I'd like to add; that's a pretty big crash site. With a lot of wreckage.

This is what was found afterwards. Some pictures to give a still view of the tail wreck.


A piece of the tailsection.

That is very large, as seen here in comparison to a human being.

Now I'm going to link to a very disturbing image. A body that is intact, after a horrific crash. DONT WATCH THIS IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO DISTURBING PICTURES
So entire, yet scorched human body's where found after the crash. At the Pentagon, none, just very small fragments. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


In addition,

[gypsum]

Hi Freddie

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion yes? You think the hole was one size, other people think otherwise. You say certain photo's are misleading, some think they aren't. Since i never actually saw the hole I can't say what size I think it is because I don't know, unfortunately

Another thing I find interesting in one photo of the pentagon is the fact that a small stool and book are right beside the area which was hit, yet neither of them are charred by the fires which would have resulted from the jet fuel burning. I saw this in one film, not sure which though. Maybe someone can help?

[Mathias]

Gypsum, that would probably be 9/11: in plane sight or Loose Change 2nd Edition.

Both on Google video by the way...

[alkmyst]

Freddie wrote:

[Justin]

If I had to take a bet as to what hit the Pentagon, my favourite would be this:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies72.htm (go to next 3 pages)

the A3 Sky Warrior especially disguised for this operation in AA markings and livery. Travelling in at 350mph plus, I challenge any unsuspecting eyewitness to know what it was. This is why we got some reports of an executive jet, some of a 757 and others of a military jet. Camouflage and deception is something the military know only too well and given the importance of this false flag operation, the very best would have been involved in getting this plane to look just the part. The possibility of a missile being fired from the plane moments before impact also sounds feasible and may explain the penetration effect.

What do you all think?

[freddie]

Mathias,

Thankyou for a proper post, with some relevant evidence - it's the first I've been presented with in this thread. Shame you taled off half way.

Ok, so I am with you on the apparent vast difference between these two cases, but I can't agree that they are totally comparible (and I'm not being unreasonable here, I do partly agree, but there are these points):

Firstly Do you know what angle the plane hit the hill at? - was it straight on or did the angle cause the crash to break up rather than a perfectly direct hit? - Each crash has different debris patterns.

Secondly, earth covered in shrubs is not evenly remotely similar to a 2 foot thick concrete and limestone, steel reinforced wall with Kevlar blast protection and two ince thick bomb proof windows.

[alkmyst]

This image from: http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh2/Pentagon2.htm

Al K Myst

[freddie]

Gypsum,

[gypsum]

Thanks Mathius!

Alkmyst, thats a very interesting theory! I hadnt heard of this yet. I had no idea there was an airport so near the pentagon either

Seems plausible enough to me!

Freddie for god sakes, we've read your posts.
Why would they want everyone to argue? WHY??? To make people debate on what really happened? Surlely it would be in the interests of the Government to not piss people off by withholding information?

Just because you've gave your view on this doesn't mean other people can't.

[alkmyst]

Is there a correlation between these photographs?

1).


2).


3).


Al K Myst

[gypsum]

Freddie youre not the only one going mad here. I told you I can't tell how wide the damage was already. All I was trying to say was you're basically the only person (who I've come across) that thinks the hole was as large as you say.

And I have not 'suscribed' to any theory

[freddie]

Alkmyst,

Why on earth would you post a cropped version of one of the pics I posted?!

It is a smaller version of the large image with the widths ... why have you ignored that? - How wide are you saying it is? - What is it that I've seen wrong?

[freddie]

Justin,

I commend you for sticking your neck out and actually suggesting an alternative. And I believe this is the closest alternative I've heard. Let's pretend for a moment that the eye witness accounts support this - I am still gagging for a motive? - Why risk everything?

Peace

[brian]

"Asked if there were unreleased photographs of the attack that would convince the doubters, Zelikow, of the 9/11 commission, said, "No."

The why would they do this and risk the operation is the one question that sprung to my mind but when you consider the glaring faults in the official tale you end up asking how in the name of ---- did they think they could get away with this. The answer, on the face of it, seems to my mind that the influence of the internet was not given enough consideration. Prior false flag operations, no matter how shoddy, could easily be passed over with the contrivance of the mainstream media and anyone questioning them consigned to the tin foil hat crew.

Personally I see the Pentagon as a cul de sac and believe most emphasis should be put on the blatant demolition of the WTC buildings.

[alkmyst]

Freddie,

Do you, by any chance, have a sister who goes by the name of Rachel?

Al K Myst

[gypsum]

Freddie, do you still believe it was a terrorist who could hardly fly a small plane who crashed the plane into the pentagon?

If not, then I am unsure of any motive at all apart from whatever reasons Bush may have had perhaps? There's no way of knowing this for sure at present (if it is indeed the case).

Any ideas anyone?

[alkmyst]

Brian,

I absolutely concur. Some interesting conjecture and good practice for responding to those who still think that there is merit in the official version.

However, the minutae of the Pentagon is almost an irrelevance when dealing with the collapse of the four WTC buildings ................... Sorry did I say four Buildings?

Yes, we have apparently overlooked Building 6 ............but that's for another thread.

Good night Freddie .......... I'm outa this thread.

Al K Myst

[freddie]

Alkmyst, - is that supposed to be some sort of clever pop ... I'm an agent, I am secretly someone else ... I have an agenda - My agenda is to do my best to get this story out, so if people are saying obviously false statments, or theorizing based on the most laughable evidence (which will ultimately undermine the direction of the movement), then I say it becomes my agenda to find out why people still believe this fairy tale - I think I've pretty clear about this from teh start.

Gypsum,

You're embarrassing yourself and disrespecting me.

[freddie]

Alkmyst,

Why are you leaving? - Not so soon, please, at least have a pop at one of my questions ... please. I am genuinely shocked at the closed mindedness of this forum on this subject. I wouldn't be so surpised if you could show me any evidence, but so far, everyone seems happy to continue on attacking me without even answering my most basic of questions.

I'm still up for working through this, but I want people to read all the posts and see who's dodging the questions? - And what was my intent? - Was it to start a fight or to establish some TRUTHS?

Lastly, it comes down to what sort of 'movement' you want to part of - one that crudely attacks its opposition, or one that bases its conclusions on evidence. I thought we were supposed to be embracing truth.

[gypsum]

Oh dear Freddie, I'm guessing I'm not the only one getting impatient with you. I have read every one of your posts and listened to your views. You asked for other theories on what could have happened, and when you were given them you tried to dismiss it, although you were good enough to at least acknowlege that they had made a point. Maybe you should try a bit harder to listen to other peoples views instead of just 'subscribing' to your own?

[freddie]

Gypsum,

You said you read my posts and yet keep repeating your questions, making it all too apparent that you haven't READ or haven't understood my posts.

One last chance to to question what you've said to me in regards to what I've already written - that's it man, I am trying to be nice but you're not making it easy.

Peace

[freddie]

Brian,

I get what you're saying and totally agree - but do you not understand my point here? - would you let it lay if others were still purporting the UFO / hologram story?

Peace

[alkmyst]

Deja vu, perhaps?

A Sharp Major; Solve et Coagula ...........and now Freddie!

Gypsum wrote:

[Mathias]

Freddie thank you for replying.

I'll give you an answer that is relevant tomorrow. I'm too tired now. I'm very active in the Belgian movement to get the truth out there. I'm organising screenings of various footage and inviting local experts for a debate.

1 thing, the evidence of eyewitnesses saying that they saw a 8-20 passenger commuter plane is in the second edition of Loose Change.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+c hange&pl=true

I'm all for discussion. But I advise you not to get too mad.

I've been researching this for 2.5 years and I have gotten mad too often.

See you tomorrow.

And indeed....

PEACE

[Mathias]

By the way, I've gotten used to explaining this matter as if I was talking to a ten-year old child, because otherwise I get robbed of any credibility.

So I was merely emphasizing the fact that the two crashes don't add up.


All stuff aside... (I'm tired, sry for my ineloquent choice of words), comparing these two crashes....

Did a 737 fly into the pentagon? I think not.

[freddie]

Alkmyst,

Once again, I don't quite know what you're incinuating but I'll presume it's harmless forum fun.

[freddie]

Ok, I can see that this thread has died, as nobody seems bothered enough to back up their theories. I will just summerize my points so anyone who hasn't already made up their mind can skip all the question dodging, repitition and personal jabs at me. These are major points and all but 1 has been dodged in my previous posts, which doesn't give me much faith in the 'no-plane' theories:

1- The "18 foot hole" claim is clearly false, and the far wider damage can be seen in the image (with measurements) on page 1.

2- The majority of eyewitnesses claim to have seen something simiilar to a 757 ... so at the very least we can say the witnesses identified a plane.

3- There are no witnesses that describe a missile or globalhawk hitting the pentagon.

4- The confiscation of cctv tapes does not prove that it wasn't a plane.

5- The 5 frames of pentagon CCTV footage is highly suspect, and shouldn't be used as evidence without recognition of its questionable authenticity.

6- The mysterious object under the blue tarp is nothing more than a tent.

7- There is some evidence of a 757 (although not as much as one might have expected) such as the engine, wheel, tires, scraps etc - yes there isn't loads, but if we say there is none, then that is false - your only method to explain this is to say they were placed there.

8- The lampposts that were damaged point to a large plane as a missile or global hawk could not have caused this damage.

9- What many members of this board have called the 'perfectly horizontal left wing damage line' is nothing of the sort. It clearly shows the steel beams having been exposed after the bricks and limestone surrounding it have been totally destroyed. The beams even show some sort of damage. - Could a missile do that?

10- The generator that was struck was moved towards the pentagon - a missile, global hawk or bomb could not do this.

----

A few points to add, that you won't hear from an official story believer:

1- The reported smell of cordite does not prove a missile, as I believe the building had explosives pre planted.

2- Hanjour's piloting skills does not prove it wasn't a plane, because it could have easily have been remotely piloted (as I believe the other planes were).

3- The fact that the missile defence posts didn't shoot it down does not prove 'no plane', it proves complicity.

4- There is no logical motive for using anything other than a large plane to conduct the pentagon attack. The possibility of even one witness seeing / filming the missile would have risked the entire mission - and after (potentially) hijacking 3 planes with remote control, wouldn't it be easier to use a plane?


-------I realize that these don't conclusively prove a large plane hit the pentagon - but they sure as hell point away from it being a missile or globalhawk. If anyone can show me that any of these points are incorrect, then I and many other thousands of people would be very grateful--------