Pentagon plane crash

EDIT*-sorry saw similar topic...please delete

I remember seeing this footage of an object smashing into the Pentagon on tv soon after 9/11. I was just looking at this and I noticed that at 24 seconds if you stop the clip you can see an object start to fly in from the right. I checked around and the airplane that hit the pentagon was nearly 44 feet tall, and if you look at the pentagon you can see that it's about 5 stories high. The object that you see in the vid is so small that there is no way that it can be an airplane.

youtube.com...

i searced for this and didn't find it...it's probably already been up before, sorry if it has been

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Loutty]

It's so OBVIOUS!

You can see the missle exhaust trail in the video, clear as day!

The 44 foot height of a 757 is with the landing gear extended. It's not nearly that tall when it's in flight. As for the white smoke, it's probably a damaged engine after taking debris from hitting a light pole through it.

Hum,, keeping a straight and level flight after hitting lightpoles and a generator trailer, imagine that !

I disagree.

In those images, which are going frame by frame, not once do you see a jet. No tail, which would be promanent in a picture, or the body of the plane itself. When you watch, you can see the security patrol car roll through easily enough, but when the "plane" hits, you see a whizz of white smoke, then an explosion. If a plane were coming in, to crash, land, whatever, you'd see something.

I just don't see anything there.



(Edited for spelling error)

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Valdimer]

Considering that the generator trailer was RIGHT NEXT TO the building, I don't think that's going to cause a really big issue as far as making the plane miss the building.

I did not say it would cause it to miss the building but it would not be flying a straight and level flight after hitting lightpoles and generator.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Regardless of that, there is no CLEAR image of a plane going into the Pentagon. What you see, if no frames have been taken out, is a trail of smoke, followed by an explosion. A plane would be a rather large object in the video frames, but still, there is no plane there.

If you go along the arguement that the plane was abscured by the generator trailer, a plane is still LARGER than a generator trailer, and you would still see something.

If you can find anywhere in that video that a plane is going into the Pentagon, please, point it out to me and I'll recall my statement.

Until then, however, it seems very clear to me that it was not a plane.

Zaphod58 I have seen pictures of jet engines leaving white smoke before and that seems pretty reasonable as to what the white image is in the Pentagon security video. Do you think it could possibly be jet fuel leaking from a ruptured fuel tank that was damaged by a light pole?


By the way, this is my first post on ATS. As a matter of fact this is my first post on any forum!

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Boone 870]

It could be either that, or damage to the engine causing a massive oil leak, which would also spew white smoke. Although that does make more sense now that you mention it, that it would be fuel. There's a great picture of a British Airways 777 shortly after take off where the mechanics forgot to put a purge door back onto the center wing fuel tank, and it has a huge white trail coming out behind it.

777 Fuel Leak

Oh, and welcome to ATS! If you're interested in aviation we have a great forum for that here.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by Zaphod58]

Counter argument

MASCAL


F-4 firing missile


F-4 impact test







[edit on 2-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

You can talk all you want about oil leaks, smoking engines etc, but in no way did a 747 hit the pentagon that I can see from that clip. I don't know what hit the pentagon but I would like to see the rest of the confiscated videos.

Well, again we agree on something. There IS no way that a 747 hit the Pentagon.


747:



757:

Sorry, from that clip in no way did a 757 hit the pentagon.

Let's just see the rest of the videos and put this argument to rest.

Well I'm gonna have to agree as well. There is absolutly no way that a 747 hit the pentagon.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

I've seen a very good clip that counters this argument.
The white "cloud" is just smoke from a damage engine after the plane hit trees and lamp poles before crashing into the Pentagon wall. The tail of the plane is just visible to the left of the "smoke" for one frame only before the impact. It's impossible to tell from this distance what type of airliner it is, but I'm fairly convinced that it is a 757. (Lumps of fuselage with the correct passenger jet insignia was scattered all over the place).
Note that as the plane crossed the highway and grass, it knocked down several lamp poles. There is no way a single missile could do this. There is nothing to be gained by conspiracy theorists claiming that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. After all, the government NEEDED to take damage in order to get support for its future wars.
youtube.com...

What I'm trying to get across here is you would SEE the plane in video frames, which you do not, hitting the side of the building. You would see something large in those frames, and again, you don't see them. You would see the plane go into the building, you would see that explosion go along at least some of the structure of the plane, but still, you don't see any of that.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced it was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Agreed.

What happened to the other videos that were taken from the gas station (I can't remeber the name of it off hand) and the Hotel (which I also can't remember the name of)?

What's so important about those tapes? What's on them that we can't see?

Does anyone else see the small missile like object coming in from the rigt at 24 seconds. way too small to be a plane.

Considering that we're looking through a fish eye lens, from a camera that takes pictures every couple of seconds, and trying to see a plane moving at 300+ mph I'm not surprised that we don't see it in the picture.