| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
humanoid
Minor Poster
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 48
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: plane overflew the pentagon.. |
 |
|
A good investigation. The eyewitness testimony leaves no doubt that the plane hitting the Pentagon came in from the side of the Citgo gas station opposite to that stated in the official record. This means that the lamp poles could have been knocked over neither by impact nor by the wake of the plane, as it would have been too far away. But the investigation raises awkward questions that it does not answer. Why would the perps bother in the first place to create an incorrect, incoming flight path by either placing broken poles on the ground beforehand (a highly unlikely possibility because they would have been seen lying in the roads before the plane came over) or by blowing them up at the right moment with planted, remote-detonated explosives? What would be the point of such a risky and seemingly pointless operation? Why would the perps be so hung up over a difference of impact angles of, say, 30-40 degrees that they wanted everyone to believe the impact was far more oblique than it really was (according to the drawings made by the witnesses, the plane hit at about right angles to the wall of the Pentagon)?
The witnesses do not agree about the colour of the plane, nor whether it had markings on it. One policeman was adamant that he saw a United Airlines plane, although one wonders whether his memory is playing tricks with him as he got it wrong over the minor issue of where exactly he parked his car that day in the gas station. All agreed that it was a large plane. This destroys the theory that a military jet like a Skywarrior hit the Pentagon, for none of them saw such a small plane either coming in at a different angle or following the plane that they saw. The trouble with this is that the size issue was always the reason why many people could not believe the official story in the first place, for such a large plane as these witnesses confirm it was should have left far more debris on the Pentagon lawn if it had truly hit the Pentagon, instead of vanishing almost completely through a 16-18ft hole. So the only way of reconciling what they said with the small amount of debris left is to suppose that what they saw was NOT the object that actually crashed into the Pentagon but a plane that flew over its roof and landed at Regan Airport behind it. But then what caused all the damage? None of the witnesses saw any other plane flying towards the Pentagon at the same time, so the theory that some other smaller plane tagging behind the big one crashed into the wall does not hold up, as some of the witnesses were in a position to have noticed such a plane. According to the Pentagon video footage, the plane had to be small enough to be hidden by the concrete post by the gas station, making some people think it had to be a small jet, otherwise the configuration of the official, incoming path and the size of the Pentagon wall mathematically imply that the nose of the plane would have been visible in the video, based upon the position of the tail visible at the other end of the post. This is another reason why some of the witnesses must be wrong in assuming that what they saw was the plane that hit the Pentagon and another reason for supposing that it actually flew over the building just as the explosion occurred, deluding them into thinking that it had crashed when they saw the fireball.
The only scenario consistent with what they saw, with the video footage and with the sparse debris (the latter two of which which require a plane much smaller than what they saw) is that the wall of the Pentagon was blown up just as the plane they saw flew over it and that the infamous video itself has been edited to make the fireball look like that of a jet fuel explosion instead of explosives. This would explain why more frames have never been released - no plane hit the Pentagon! But skeptics will then ask: why not just fly the hijacked plane into the damn Pentagon instead of creating all these false trails and fake evidence of a plane crash? Anyone got an answer to this? Please don't suggest that the witnesses were lying. They look and sound very credible. Policemen would hardly give false information for a documentary that they know contradicts the official scenario, which most of their colleagues (and no doubt themselves) accept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good summary Micpsi. I have been pondering a few of those issues as well. Possible reasons in favour of a fly-over.
1. This wasn't originally part of the 9/11 plan. It certainly doesn't seem to have the complexity of the WTC setup.
2. They wanted to destroy a particular part of the building - and presumably what was contained in that part.
3. They didn't have a plane spare to do the job. And using a plane would have meant a possible miss of the exact spot, and even worse hitting a different part and killing some of their own. Also they couldn't demolish the whole crime scene.
4. Therefore they had to pre-determine the flight path, drop the lamp-posts and rely on sealing the scene and flooding the media with eye-witnesses who saw it all happen. (cue the man seeing the pilot wrestling with the controls)
5. For some reason the plane didn't come in on the correct flight path. Probably not as easy as hitting the right runway.
This is all total speculation, backed up by very little proof - hence the very best type of speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L8O1S5T
Minor Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what is the overall speculation?
That a large plane flew over the pentagon just as the explosion occured. So does this mean that a smaller plane came in from a different angle causing the actual explosion or were the frames we saw messed with? Something was in the frames. It was some kind of small jet plane that hit the pentagon. I'm sure there were explsosives in the building as well but something had to have hit the building because it's in the frames. Unless they were faked? But if they were faked, they obviously did't get the sizes right because whatever is in the frames is not a boeing airplane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| L8O1S5T wrote: | So what is the overall speculation?
That a large plane flew over the pentagon just as the explosion occured. So does this mean that a smaller plane came in from a different angle causing the actual explosion or were the frames we saw messed with? Something was in the frames. It was some kind of small jet plane that hit the pentagon. I'm sure there were explsosives in the building as well but something had to have hit the building because it's in the frames. Unless they were faked? But if they were faked, they obviously did't get the sizes right because whatever is in the frames is not a boeing airplane. |
According to all the witnesses, the plane that flew towards the Pentagon was a commercial-sized plane. Now, if these guys are genuine (they include two policemen who didn't seem to realise that they were contradicting the official investigation in placing the flight path to the left instead of the right of the Citgo gas station!), then the plane they saw and assumed was Flight 77 could NOT have crashed into the Pentagon (hole was too small and the debris field was too small). They did not notice another plane coming in, but I wonder, if it had been a small jet flying very low, whether they would have noticed it, given that their eyes were glued on the large plane. So either they did not notice a smaller plane or else the video frames are totally faked to make you think a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Only, as you say, the fakers did not get the scale right because the nose of the Boeing plane should have stuck out from the left-hand side of the concrete block if its tail was sticking up on the right of the block, as can be seen in a video frame. Placing the flight path to the left instead of to the right of the Citgo gas station increases the approach angle, reduces foreshortening of the image of the plane and brings the plane nearer to the camera, making this problem even more serious because it would have made the plane look even longer in the video.
Personally, I am inclined to the view that the video is faked (no plane hit the Pentagon) and that the round 16-18ft hole in the Pentagon wall photographed before it collapsed was actually caused by the special kind of demolition charge that armies use for making holes in walls (as was the exit hole in the third ring). But it's possible a small, remote-controlled military jet painted in United Airlines colors was flown into the Pentagon just as the large plane (presumably Flight 77) flew over the roof of the Pentagon to land at Regan Airport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigyin
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Central Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure who it was that pointed out something odd about the pentacon explosion... there is no shadow from the cloud of flame and smoke on the ground where you would expect it. If you watch the video of the second plane hitting the wtc tower you will see a shadow produced on the other tower from the explosion cloud. In the pentacon video look at the shadows made by the buildings and other objects, the sun was on the other side of the building so the explosion cloud should have produced a large shadow on the lawn. There isn't one, suggesting the explosion cloud may have been produced or enhanced in photoshop. Can people look at this and tell me I'm wrong please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
