I am looking for, and not finding, the first picture of the pentegon crash that happened on 9-11. The one before the floors fell where there is just a hole in the side of the building with unbroken windows to the left of the entry point. Can I get some assistance please? Someone has asked me for proof that a plane did not hit there.

I have a lot of high quality photos of the pentagon after the attack and I looked through them all and I can't see an airplane of any kind in any of them.

I was working on posting them, but it would cost me about 10,000 ATS points for the server space even if I reduced the file sizes.

If you want these big files, ask me and I'll e-mail them to you.

Also, I have a 3CD set of September 11 images, video, news broadcast, police and fire channel broadcasts, text, all kinds of stuff. If you want a copy, I'll send it to you for shipping. (About 5 bucks. I'll mail back the change with it).

Let me know.
DeltaChaos

You do realize the plan struck the Pentagon on the side facing one of the busiest highways in the nation during morning rush-hour and there are dozens of eye-witnesses (if not hundreds) who saw the plane (including my brother). The plane flew low-and-fast over the highway before hitting the Pentagon. Soft aluminum plane hits big strong stone building at high speed. There won't be much left.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
You do realize the plan struck the Pentagon on the side facing one of the busiest highways in the nation during morning rush-hour and there are dozens of eye-witnesses (if not hundreds) who saw the plane (including my brother). The plane flew low-and-fast over the highway before hitting the Pentagon.

Soft aluminum plane hits big strong stone building at high speed. There won't be much left.

There is no way a plane hit the petagon. Look again at the single photo in my previous reply. The wings would have AT LEAST cleared out the windows completely - not to mention the engines. Some say a plane did hit nearby on the helo-pad, but it definately wasn't the building.

My father witnessed it as well.

Lots of people did. Lots of average people from the general public.

The "a plane didn't hit the pentagon" conspiracy theory is one of the lamest ones i've run across. I'm sure if there wasn't video of it, people would say aliens blew up the WTC with death rays.

Originally posted by godservant
There is no way a plane hit the petagon. Look again at the single photo in my previous reply. The wings would have AT LEAST cleared out the windows completely - not to mention the engines. Some say a plane did hit nearby on the helo-pad, but it definately wasn't the building.

I'm sure if Skeptics brother said he saw a plane hit the pentagon, I'm willing to take that as fact. He'd hardly lie to him about it would he?

Originally posted by godservant There is no way a plane hit the petagon.

You are in denial. Read again my information about the highway... a very busy highway... during morning rush hour... with hundreds of people who would have seen the plane... and several who said so on national news, moments after it happened. Also... do you forget the Pentagon windows are bullet-proof?

There are reports of witnesses saying a lot of things, including the plane hitting the helopad. With so many conflicting stories, most of us are left with analyzing the photos.

You can show photos all you want as "proof" a plane didn't hit the pentagon...but i live in the area, i'm surrounded by people who saw it, the people who cleaned it up, and the people who were still pulling boeing outta the concrette durring reconstruction.

I take it that you're a demolitions expert with a degree in engineering though to be able to make such claims over hundreds of witnesses directly and indirectly.

Or you are claiming general populous eyewitness accounts aren't trust worthy and we shouldn't beleive in any of the accounts of history? I mean after all, everything predating cameras would be just eyewitness accounts.

Sorry if this sound harsh to you, but I just don't get how you can look at a picture and claim hundreds of ordinary people and dozens of experts are lying.

Originally posted by godservant With so many conflicting stories,

Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies. If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of people (who were driving on that highway) saying so? Why did they say-so within 1-hour of the event (the initial heliport accounts were from media on the other side of the building). If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of civilian rescue workers who were in the Pentagon at the time saying so? If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why have we seen wreckage of engines and landing gear on the Pentagon lawn in the photos of the rescue effort? If a plane didn't hit, what else cause the collapse inward of an exceptionally strong building? When people such as this ignore logic and focus on fantasy, the entire conspiracy community looses credibility... and this has been going on all too often on the Internet.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by godservant
With so many conflicting stories,

Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies.

If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of people (who were driving on that highway) saying so? Why did they say-so within 1-hour of the event (the initial heliport accounts were from media on the other side of the building).

If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why aren't there hundreds of civilian rescue workers who were in the Pentagon at the time saying so?

If a plane didn't hit were indicated, why have we seen wreckage of engines and landing gear on the Pentagon lawn in the photos of the rescue effort?

If a plane didn't hit, what else cause the collapse inward of an exceptionally strong building?




When people such as this ignore logic and focus on fantasy, the entire conspiracy community looses credibility... and this has been going on all too often on the Internet.

Well said.

Actually, the only conflicting stories are from the likes of you, who twist facts in the hopes of finding a conspiracy theory... thereby hurting the credibility of real efforts to discover scandals and conspiracies.

I didn't mean to make this personal. I could be wrong, I am only human.

k.. we have people who say they have seen the plane...

we have photo's of a hole smaller then the supposed plane that hit the building...

we also have people who say the terrorist pilot of the plane that hit the pentagon couldent even fly a single engine cesna


so how about this... the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon wasent.... it was a diffrent plane ? possibly controled by the ground or on a preprogramed flight path ..... painted up to look like a passanger airliner ?

personally i dont know what happened i wasent their to see the plane for myself. all i can do is filter through all the information on the subject and come up with the conclusion that seems most logical to me...

Can anyone explain the gate photos, the intensity of the flash?

Surely people have read about the parallel flight paths of this inside operation. (Like duh, there are trillions of extra future dollars for special corporate hardware and banking interests invested in the 911 demolitions?) It is possible for more than one corridor, eg. a global hawk AND a plausible commercial aircraft not necessarily in the same order, controlled by AWACS. You simply fly in the aircraft for a cover story and then let the global hawk or the cruise missile "do its duty," within seconds.

Remember remote controlling aircraft are nothing new, if you maintain history. Joe Kennedy Jr died in World War II while remote controlling another aircraft for his then important mission.

The biggest stumbling block may well be the confiscated of the gas station security camera photos. It is right near the event. Those videos reveal what really happened. Can it only be a coverup of some kind, that the truth is hidden and taxpayers will pay the bill for this inside job?

I am sad that too many of us have been such suckers for emotions. When the sheer physical fact of 911 is similar to any Vegas demolition, the exception is the fact that our shadow government left the people inside without warning. All of us direct our emotions to "Osama," when in fact no one from this shadow government and the regular elected government has ever explained the absence of normal intercepts from NORAD. Hey go back to your Dilbert cubicles, and ask your superiors for a better set of arguments. This entire operation was so sloppy only misdirection, total control of the media, and literal belief structures in propaganda, compensate in any measure.

It is not surprising that a public that ignores its own power, can just key tow to all the emotional paired associations, and thrust itself into whatever Frankenstein the shadow government requires. I applaud all the peasants with their torches and the theater of it, but this entire episode as it continues has no plausibility and no adequate explanation.

There is simply too much evidence, even in the general media that is "in your face." Nothing explains how a white flash proceeded in the gate photo, and how jet fuel can ever burn at 4000 degrees or some such level. The science is not there, with the USG "explanations."

I give maybe a D minus grade for "plausible deniability," on this entire thing. The only reason for not flunking is they don't give out F grades anymore, due to dumbing down of any semblence of academic rigor for too many people of the public.

On the other hand as too often in history, authority tells you the earth is flat because it can. Fact vs. belief is the story of history. The earth is really flat you know, "because we say so." Much more "I will not look in your microscope Mr. Leeuwenhoek." Even Louis Pastuer had to struggle with this microbe thing, when when common knowledge from Galen in Rome advised upon cleanliness. The dark ages are the most difficult from which to emerge.

Why does it take years for even the most simple technical advances to open eyes, and renew counsel? 911 is no exception to the standard paradigm we know. It is a struggle just to confront authority on anything at all, no matter how stupid it is.

When you've got a wife, kids to feed, and a mortgage to burn in a few years, you know, who needs to think anyway?

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by CanadaCANfight all i can do is filter through all the information on the subject and come up with the conclusion that seems most logical to me...

But how can you do that when most of the information on the Internet ignores reality and is based on false assumptions?