It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Looking for some solid information about the pentagon strike

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:15 PM
I have found a few pieces of information here and there online, but none are satisfactory. There is so much information, and as I tend to steer away from places with some of the more exotic theories surrounding the pentagon, I'm finding it hard to get some significant information.

What I'm looking for, in a nutshell, is a good analysis of the 5 frames of footage, coupled with proper measurements, deminsions, trajectories, and so on of the impact. I have found a few, but they all seem to differ, and generally to support whatever theory they are selling. I'm not intrested in the "why" of things. I'm interested in the HOW. Anyone have any good leads? (Please do not assume I'm bashing ANY theory or idea, I just want something neutral, or as close to it as can be hoped.)

If there simply is none to be had, would anyone be interested in doing a complete workup? I have no personal qualification to be considered "credible" but I can do math and highschool physics (which is, I'm quite sure, more than enough to draw up a working model). I am reachable via any of the messengers, here, or otherwise. Thank you for your time!

*edited for spelling.. shame on me. Probably still missed a bit**

[edit topic to clarify request on 3-1-2008 by LeeHarvey]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by LeeHarvey]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by LeeHarvey]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by LeeHarvey

Hi Lee,

Welcome to ATS. There is an abundance of information. What you feel is relevant may differ from others. The following sites I will give you will give you as much information as you want in regards to the Pentagon and other CT's. These are not "truther" sites.

There is a page at the Jref Forum that link an abundance of sites.

Please feel free to use the U2U option here if you wold like to contact me directly.

Good Luck

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:43 PM
I do not know if this will answer all your questions, but it is the best and only satisfactory detailed analysis of the Pentagon I have read to date. The author's obvious expertise is why.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by LeeHarvey


There are some other sites that offer detailed information. (you dont have to buy a book to find the truth)

The following linf is for the Moussaoui Trial, it contains several pieces of evidence from the Pentagon attack. (some very graphic)

More interesting Reads:

Learn how the Pentagon's resilient structural system substantially mitigated the damage, number of casualties and fatalities, and extent of collapse that resulted from the 9/11 terrorist attack.

You wont have to order the report. It is available on line for free.

Hope this information helps.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:16 PM
I will take some time in the morning to look over these links. It's not that the information i find isn't... reliable. It's just often been leaned in favor of a certain theory or arguement. Not by altering it even, sometimes just leaving things out is enough, but I'd rather have a solid full detail than lots of pieces. Again, I'll look these over, thank you for the quick reply's and welcomes. I look forward to debate in the future.

@CaptainObvious, thank you for the information. I don't mind "truther" sites, I'm doing a bit of research for a project for friends and family.. kind of a crash course in the basics. I'm trying to avoid any of the exotic theories, or anything they could scoff off as "crazy talk" as a few of them may. That is my only intent, as I 've stated elsewhere, even my theories are "crazy talk" to someone, including most of the sheep I'd like to think we're all trying to wake up.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by LeeHarvey]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

Is he the guy that got tried in Germany and released due to lack of US cooperation?

Wow, edited because I noticed I didn't mention who "he" was: Moussaoui

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:02 AM
Hi LeeHarvey,

If you haven't heard of us, Citizen Investigation Team has done the most comprehensive research on the Pentagon attack to date.

I have personally spoken with dozens of witnesses, first responders, victims, as well as some that have been demonstrated to be complicit in the operation many of which we have filmed on location.

We have proven a deception in Arlington on that day and we have additional yet unreleased evidence that we are currently compiling further demonstrating this.

I have to say that in my opinion your decision to start with analyzing the Pentagon security video isn't very logical if you are doing so while questioning the validity of the official story.

The reason being is that this is data that 100% sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect.

There isn't much logic in using this information as a means to validate the official story if you feel there is any evidence whatsoever to question it.

(Oh and there most certainly is that Lee! And plenty of it.)

That being said let's take a look at the details surrounding this dubious government supplied data.

The 5 frames were first released in March of 2002 but the DoD refused to even take credit for them!

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin."

original source: Washington Post

Strangely, or perhaps not so, you can see how the article was removed from the Washington Post site but the page and heading still remains.

Fortunately I had taken a screen shot a while back.

So the 5 frames were "leaked" yet ignored for years until May 2006 when they "officially" released the same video and an additional view still not showing anything definitive.

Despite all this unnecessary mystery the data itself is questionable even to the naked eye.

Forget about the wrong date stamp for a moment and consider the odd thick and squiggly smoke plume that appears in one frame.

It does not even cast a shadow while everything else in the video does.

Plus not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence mentions seeing this alleged smoke plume. Not one.

Also......the smoke plume and unidentifiable alleged flying object are perfectly level.

This is irreconcilable not only with the topography of the area that has the Pentagon at the bottom of a significant decline but also with the NTSB provided black box data that allegedly came from flight 77.

Trends in the FDR itself depict a noticeable descent angle.

Check out this 10 minute presentation demonstrating this fatal contradiction:

Google Video Link

Really the only thing you can learn from the government controlled security video is what the suspect wants you to learn.

My opinion is that this data was meant to support the missile disinfo to throw people off from the real smoking guns and blatant contradictions such as.....

1. The fact that the plane flew on the north side of the former CITGO gas station making it impossible to hit the light poles and cause all of the physical damage.

2. Lack of foundation damage to the building.

3. The fact that most of the previously unknown witnesses we could find on the street describe the plane as white.

4. The fact that the government provided FDR is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

5. The fact that the plane was over DC skies as reported earlier by ABC news, the C-130 pilot, Norman Mineta, Colin Scoggins on the NORAD tapes, as well as from an independent eyewitness we interviewed who was on the river.

All of these facts are fatal contradictions with the official story Lee.

There is no evidence that ANYTHING hit the Pentagon at all and the evidence proves that the plane really flew over the building timed perfectly with the explosion to create the illusion that it hit.

The flyover is not a "freaky" theory Lee.

It is the only alternative to the plane hitting the building because there is clear proof there was a plane and that it could not have hit.

Visit our site in my signature Lee and feel free to ask any questions you like.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:17 AM
Oh I would like to add that we did not start our investigation pushing any "theory".

The flyover alternative came as a result of our comprehensive investigation that turned up copious amounts of evidence.

We went there and literally knocked on doors to find out what people really saw and it turns out that it ended up proving the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

The deeper we dig the more blatant contradictions we find in the official story.

top topics


log in