Rumsfeld admits missile in pentagon !!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Another thing to bring into consideration...

The angle that that jet was to the ground was PERFECT. Not more than 5 feet at the point of impact. That kind of flying is done by someone who definitely knows what they're doing..

I don't know if the terrorists who hijacked the jets had the capabilities..but that flying is flawless if they actually did so.

-wD




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   


PepeLapiu1 wrote:
"What's the matter?
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860} wrote "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident".

You are making the following logical flaw: "Heresy Equals Correctness".

Heresy does NOT equal correctness - "They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers" . . . Being laughed at does not mean you are right. History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names.

There is an astoundingly well detailed section on this website showing fairly conclusively that a 757 DID hit the pentagon!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 23-5-2005 by opensecret1150]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Its Parade magazine. Consider the source. The Pentagon was hit by a plane. I saw afantastic post here regarding all of the evidence, and I highly doubt that any red blooded American would do this and not be caugth.

Hell, a missile>? Tim Mcveigh used fertilizer and got nailed, Im sure a missile would be a bit easier to detect. This is a a dead horse. 911 is well known. At this point, Rumsfelds creidibility is lacking even more so.
He coud say mcveigh had something to do with it, it would get reported, and the press would pass on it as him getting just a wee bit too old.

After all, Rummy said something about a jet shooting down flight 93, and nothing came of that .


Peace.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
Drogo's signature: dammit how many times do i have to tell you it's rape pillage THEN burn

LOL, that's funny!



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Another thing to bring into consideration...

The angle that that jet was to the ground was PERFECT. Not more than 5 feet at the point of impact. That kind of flying is done by someone who definitely knows what they're doing..

I don't know if the terrorists who hijacked the jets had the capabilities..but that flying is flawless if they actually did so.

-wD

Let's talk about Hani Hanjour (the alleged terrorist pilot) a little bit.


"When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, 'We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997' Chilton said."
Newsday



"(Flight Academy) Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
The New York Times



"Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots.
The Cape Cod Times (cached)



"At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
Newsday

So the guy could not even rent a Cessna just a few weeks proir to 9/11 so I guess he wasn't a very skilled pilot after all, now was he?
Now, let's look at the skills needed to fly that Boeing in the way that dear box cutter terrorist Hani Hanjour was required to have:


".... just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
The Washington Post



"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,"
ABC News


You buyin' it?
- Not me!

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Its Parade magazine. Consider the source.

From my head post:
In an interview with The Parade Magazine and posted
on the United States Department of Defense web site.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
do you have any other evidence to support the "missile" theory.


I sure do!
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pepe:

While I am sure your intentions are the BEST, please realize that the GREAT KANO snuffed this particular theory a few months back. The link has been provided in a post up above this one.

HOWEVER, if your "evidence" adds up to anything subatantial, I, for one, would love to see a structured debate on this issue.

I'll await your "evidence" on the morrow.


m...



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
That's exactly what I'm saying!

It's suspicious that such a bad pilot could manuever an aircraft at such a perfect angle. Now, I'm not an aviation specialist, but I do know (from friend's of mine) that that is a perfect angle. Not one that could be achieved by an amateur..

-wD



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Good job Pepe, keep it up.

Doesn't that big ol chunk of aluminum look a bit to clean to anybody? It just came flying out of a massive fireball right? Why does it look so clean and polished?

Also, anyone have a decent explanation of why a lot of the supposed hijackers were found to be alive? I've never read anything to explain away that little fact. Im not trying to be obnoxious or anything, I really am curious about that.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.


What he was obviously saying is that, “using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building”. Everyone heard over and over again that day the news referring to the planes, “being used as missiles”, and this is what he is obviously referring too.

As to all you guys that still claim that is not a 757 hitting the building, you need to go spend some time working around commercial aircraft, specifically 757/767’s. The skin on those planes is not as thick elsewhere as it is around the passenger entry door. That aluminum does flex at the touch of a finger and there are a lot of plastic, fiberglass and alloy parts to keep the weight down. It is not tough to imagine that the rivets pulled straight through the skin without tearing the holes significantly, and broke into thousands of small fragments once the aircraft impacted and exploded. The debris that is shown in the other thread clearly shows that there are in fact the pieces of a 757 inside the building.



Originally posted by gattaca
jesus christ
((

not again!!! not again



Man i agree with you.

Edit to add

Oh, as long as I am on the subject, the body on that aircraft is in fact 13 feet in diameter, a commercial structure building has floors at least 10 feet tall, if not 12 to allow for ductwork. I hate this picture with the plane sitting nicely balanced on its two engines like it has its landing gear down, it creates the illusion they wish to show for sure.



NOW reality is that one of those engines fell off somewhere in the parking lot prior to hitting the building itself, so you are going to have one wing scraping on the ground, plus the nose is going to be digging into the dirt. Most likely the wings are not going to handle that stress and do exactly what they stated and break apart and explode, since the fuel tanks are in the wings and there are open fuel lines leaking fuel from the knocked off engine and sparks from the steel scarping on the ground.

PLEASE do not post this picture again until it shows the way the plane is actually impacting the building with one engine off, wing tilted, second engine breaking apart, and the nose in the dirt. Of course they do not want to show that picture because it will show that the plane can in fact go right through the hole they say it cannot and WHAMMO there goes the sales on their books/videos, etc….




[edit on 5/23/2005 by defcon5]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by opensecret1150
You are making the following logical flaw: "Heresy Equals Correctness".

Nope, I was not making any logical flaws, the guy attempted to make fun of me and I returned the gratuity


There is an astoundingly well detailed section on this website showing fairly conclusively that a 757 DID hit the pentagon!

I suggest you bring those evidences one by one into this thread and I will debunk them one by one.
I have indicated here on this thread that many of the evidences of a Boeing appear false and/or exagerated and/or completely made up.
Have a look at the following picture and tell me some more how you could fit a Boeing in there:



Now the picture to the right is an artist's rendition used by the 9/11 commision in their attempt to explain how the Boeing would have entered the building.
To the right is that same airplane in use with an actual picture of the pentagon crash site .... can you now understand why they used an artist rendition instead of an actual real life picture?

Cheers.
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 24-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
NOW reality is that one of those engines fell off somewhere in the parking lot prior to hitting the building itself, so you are going to have one wing scraping on the ground, plus the nose is going to be digging into the dirt. Most likely the wings are not going to handle that stress and do exactly what they stated and break apart and explode, since the fuel tanks are in the wings and there are open fuel lines leaking fuel from the knocked off engine and sparks from the steel scarping on the ground.


Really! You think the airplane did all that BEFORE entering the building?



See any signs of a wing scrapping the ground here?
See any traces of metal digging in the dirt prior to hitting the building here?

This lawn reminds me, I gotta take the golf clubs out and wack a few ball one of these days soon!


Any way, too bad the gas station footage and the hotel footage and the other pentagon roof top footage aren't released because we could see this fenomenal fantastic crash of yours!
Why do you think those footages aren't released .... please don't say it's about "national security"?

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   


This GIF tells enough of the story to prove that a munitions missle did not strike the Pentagon. The explosion is a fuel explostion not a high explosive explosion and I have seen plenty of both. This "theory" is lame, at best, and idiotic, at worst.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


This GIF tells enough of the story to prove that a munitions missle did not strike the Pentagon.

I guess you missed my previous post in this regard so I will post it again here:


Comparative quality of video footage output

During the last 3 years, I have spent a considerable amount of efforts and time trying to gather as many security camera footages from diffferent applications I have gathered well over 50 video footage clips, anything from car cams used in cop cars, nanny cams that caught a baby sitter masturbating, corner store cameras that caught a hold up, the Madrid train station footage of the Madrid bombing, a few footages of different places in shopping malls, gas station footage of a guy that caught fire, elevator footage of a girl who stipped for her boyfriend and the list goes on and on... Every single one of those camera footages were from security cameras, they were all from a fixed station and many where hidden
Every one of them, and I mean EVERY one of them had a time stamping on the footage indicationg the time and date and often there was also a frame count as well or the time was indicated in 10th or 100th of seconds. Also, every one of them were of far faster frame rates than the pentagon video footage shown in the head message here. Not everyone was in colour (about 3 out of ten were in B&W) but they were all of at least as good resolution as the pentagon footage as well. I looked everywhere on the net and in my area of town and nowhere could I find anyone using frame rates of 1 fps. The lowest frame rate I could find was in a corner store with a frame rate of about 5 to 7 fps (manually estimated).

In addition to this, I set out to install a web cam on my computer and here is what I installed:
3Com HomeConnect Webcam
~ Still Image Capture Resolution: 640x480
~ Video Capture Resolution: 640x480 or 1280x960 (software enhanced)
~ Digital Video Capture frame rate: 60 frames per second maximum
~ On the market since 2000 but I bought it 2 years ago for around $100 (not sure) however, it has been discontinued for some time now!
~ Number of colors: 16.8 milliion
It is capable of taking high resolution JPEGs every half second (thought that would not be the most compressible output). Together with two 120 hard drives for less than $100 each and you got a set up that can capture 640x480 resolution 30 fps video for well over 4 months non-stop, all for less than a $300 upgrade to any computer.

As you can guess, my own $300 set up at home produces far better results than that of the one and only pentagon video camera footage available to the public.

So I conclude that if the footage submitted in the head message of this thread is the actual unaltered footage, it is very sub standard in comparrison with the many many given applications I have found.

Are you buying into the idea that the pentagon (a high security level place) uses monitoring equipment far cheaper than the average corner store or mall or even a simple nanny cam or even my own $100 webcam?
Me neither!


Appropriate quality for it's intended purpose

It's been argued that the pentagon gate camera only needed be good enough for the purpose of capturing any vehicles driving in and out of that area within the first 15 feet or so of the camera's field of vision. So let's examine this assertion for a second:

At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide. A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps. Geez! Even a fast runner could run by and not get caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you want to think it was intended to do!

However, the idea that a place like the Pentagon would use sub standard security equipment is simply ridiculous, especially when you consider my $300 desktop set up would be far more efficient that what the footage proposes the pentagon uses.... especially when you consider the fact that at one frame per second, the footage would be virtually useless for it's alleged intended purpose!

I don't buy it and I know you don't buy it either!


The explosion is a fuel explostion not a high explosive explosion and I have seen plenty of both.

As seen in the gif above, there is very strong evidence of a bright flash, we probably would see more of it if the pentagon cameras weren't so cheap and sub standard in comparisson with your average QuickyMart cameras.
So how many of those fuel explosions you've seen exibit a bright flash like is seen here?


This "theory" is lame, at best, and idiotic, at worst.

And my daddy can beat up yier daddy so there!



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
sorry pepe your picture won't work for me. (edit: pic in post 1427740 you posted like 2 times as i was writeing this
)

defcon 5 raises an interesting point.in an aircrash engions can definately be expected to come off, especialy when they hang lower than the rest of the aircraft. so where were those ripped off engins? i certaimly havent seen any in ANY picture, or heard of any in what people have said.also whare are the wings? they cetainly wouldn't have fit through that nice hole in the building. i haven't seen any indications of those vital parts that every plane needs in order to fly. i guess that they just managed to vanish leaveing only little unchared parts arround. were they perhaps made out of paper? mabe some balso wood?

i have been up close and personal with wings before they are put onto an aircraft. this courtasy of mcdonal douglas employee days. in the old plant by pearson airport. now these were for smaller aircraft, and they were HUGE, containing much in the way of skin and support frames. not something that would leave no real trace. there should have been quite alot of masive parts from them alone littering the crash site. they certainly left no mark of hitting the building. it is also EXTREEMLY UNLIKELY that they nicely folded into the cabin to facilitate fitting through that hole.

now since there is no real evidance of wing or engine strikes against the building then that would mean that they must have been sheered off upon strikeing the ground. that should have left rather visible evidance of their existance, as well as masive furrows torn into the groung as the jetliner skidded. but where is ANY sign of the ground being disturbed by a crash? from the pictures that are available it would apear that the aircraft NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND before or dureing the impact. (rather skillfull flying for someone unfamilier with the aircraft in question). if that were the case then there should have definately been MAGOR signs of the engions and wings hitting the building. since there was no hole created for them to enter the building then we should plainly see masive amounts of wreckage to either side of the whole. the wreckage of both the wings and those MASIVE engines.

i would also draw attention to all those big spools of wire arround the impact site. now considdering that suposidly a jet airliner just pased through them, why are most still upright and relitively undamaged? even if they were not dirrectly hit they still should have been blown over and tumbled just by the vortex created by a highspeed aircraft passing through. they also likely would have had the wire rolled out messilily tangled and not just be sitting there still nicely rolled up.

so lets review the non-evidance. impact hole not large enough for anything but the fusilage. no sign of ground impact and slideing into the building (the first few pictures show a nicely manicured lawn still intact). no engins or wing structures outside of the building (they are rather noticeible if they had been, kinda big and all). nicely rolled cable spools still upright mostly undamaged and nicely rapped. no visible damage to the building from being hit by the wings and engins. no trail of luggage and other debry (luggage is stored in the bottom and as stated the skin is realitively thin.) everrything but for a few SMALL scarps end up inside the building out of view even though there is no way that the wings could fit through. and noticibly in "pristeen" ie: non-burned condition with rivets all nicely popped with no real damage to their holes. also said parts seem to be a wee bit on the tiny side considdering the size of the suposed aircraft that hit.

yeah ok i REALY BELIEVE that a 757 left so little evidance behind.
then recall that it just HAPPENED tohit an area that is onveniantly under renovations, and not an area filled with important papers and people working. all this while in the hands of an amiture who realy is not familier with this aircrafts handleing in flight. how lucky all round that he was. i'm sorry but something realy stinks within this. and it ain't the smell of charred bodies either.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by drogo]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Really! You think the airplane did all that BEFORE entering the building?


YEP, and a lot more to be honest; more then I care to type or try and explain. So many things happen to an aircraft that comes into contact with an object at any speed, especially high speed that the FAA has trained investigators that have to try and piece together what exactly happened.

Just EXACTLY what is your background in the aviation field?
I really do not have to ask this, I can tell who has been around aircraft simply by reading between the lines. Most of them got tired of waging this ridicules war on the other thread before.
If you want to know mine, I was and airline ramp supervisor from 88 until 92 and worked on at least one 757 every day.



Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
See any signs of a wing scrapping the ground here?
See any traces of metal digging in the dirt prior to hitting the building here?

This lawn reminds me, I gotta take the golf clubs out and wack a few ball one of these days soon!


Well first off since this happened fairly early in the morning, how wet was the grass with condensation?

If you have ever seen an aircraft have to make a belly landing, the first thing that the fire department does is foam the runway to make it slick so the plane can slide in. The grass if wet enough could have easily done the same thing. Most of the friction would have been prior to hitting the grass back when the wing and engine where struck in the parking lot. From that point on I would speculate that there was a fire spreading up from the severed fuel engine lines into the wing tanks, I am sure that this took a few seconds to do which is the time needed to cross the grass and hit the building.

Second where was this picture taken in relation to where the press could get access to take the picture and the approach path of the aircraft?

If this picture was not taken from the area where the light poles and the engine where struck then it was not taken from the correct angle to see any damage which might have occurred to the lawn, if any did.



Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Any way, too bad the gas station footage and the hotel footage and the other pentagon roof top footage aren't released because we could see this fenomenal fantastic crash of yours!
Why do you think those footages aren't released .... please don't say it's about "national security"?


I have a better question to answer yours. WHY would the United States government NOT use a 757 if they wanted to fake this strike on the Pentagon, then try and cover it up?

What they could not get one on short notice?
Bush spent all the 757 money betting on the Long Horns?
What the United Sates Government did not have the resources, or the money to accomplish that small feat?
Would it not make more sense to in fact USE a 757 and pack it with additional munitions then fly it by remote?

If you want to find a conspiracy in all this, its not in what anyone used to do it, a better question is why it was not intercepted. You will find many aviation people that will agree with that question more then whether or not this is a 757…


PS here is a quick edit to the picture above as to more what the planes height to ground would be, still not perfect though I don’t know much about editing with paint programs.

[img] files.abovetopsecret.com...[/img]


[edit on 5/24/2005 by defcon5]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
While I am sure your intentions are the BEST, please realize that the GREAT KANO snuffed this particular theory a few months back. The link has been provided in a post up above this one.

Great! How about inviting that guy over here to answer a fw of my questions?

I would love to have him explain to me how the pentagon camera uses a 1 fps frame rate, sub-standard to any banks, malls, convenience stores, elevators and even sub-standard to my opwn $300 set up on my own computer!
But than and again, my security budget, my economic resources and the level of security required in my living room are of course more extensive than the pentagon's .... duh!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

it is also EXTREEMLY UNLIKELY that they nicely folded into the cabin to facilitate fitting through that hole.

Not even with a lot of vaseline?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
i have been up close and personal with wings before they are put onto an aircraft. this courtasy of mcdonal douglas employee days. in the old plant by pearson airport. now these were for smaller aircraft, and they were HUGE, containing much in the way of skin and support frames. not something that would leave no real trace. there should have been quite alot of masive parts from them alone littering the crash site. they certainly left no mark of hitting the building. it is also EXTREEMLY UNLIKELY that they nicely folded into the cabin to facilitate fitting through that hole.


Drago, you want to know where the wings went, right. Since you used to work around aircraft in some capacity or other, you must know what is in the wings, right?

Fuel Tanks

If you took a can of any ignitable substance an put it in a sealed contained tank, then lit it on fire what would happen to the tank?

Boom, into a million pieces, right?

Then you add a forward velocity and a hardened structure in front of that explosion, and you would have lots of small debris breaking up and flying into the structure. If you look at the photos you will see exactly that not a big whole in a line in the structure, but a narrow one that does not destroy all the hardened architecture since the tank was already breaking up at that point.

Edit to add

Drago
also as to where the engines went to, one was left in the parking lot where it struck a generator or something. The second engine as far as I recall was carried into the building, and CAT HERDER in his thread shows that there were identifiable pieces of this found in the interior debris, parts of the condenser and also pieces of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU).


[edit on 5/24/2005 by defcon5]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Just EXACTLY what is your background in the aviation field?

I did two years of civil engineering in college, I am presemtly building a Sonex airplane from plans (not the kit build) and I took flying classes for a while but I had to give that up due to poor funds. I will probably resume when my airplane is completed and take my lessons with my own aircraft to reduce costs (if I can find an instructor dumb enough to climb in with me that is
)
Most of all, I just use a lot of common sence which is all you really need!
I will be talking it up a storm about wing structures and wing strengh later on in this thread.
I hope you will join me!

Cheers and don't eat yellow snow .... just trust me on that, OK?
Pepe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 24-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join